MAGANLAL CHHAGANLAL PRIVATE LIMITED PARWATIBAI PUNDALIK LEGAD UMAR HABIB BIBI BATOOL PARWATIBAI PUNDALIK LEGAD Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY:THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURTS:J R VIMADALAL:ENQUIRY OFFICER:THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals and Writ Petition relate to the legality of certain proceedings taken under Ch. V-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and the Bombay government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. Ch. V-A was introduced in the Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 by Maharashtra Act 14 of 1961. That Ch. contains S. 105a and 105b (sic). According to the provisions of those S. the Commissioner in relation to premises belonging to or vesting in, or taken on lease by the corporation and the General Manager (also defined as the Commissioner) of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking in relation to premises of the corporation which vest in it for the purposes of that undertaking were granted certain powers of eviction in respect of unauthorised occupation of any corporation premises. Unauthorised occupation is defined as occupation by any person of corporation premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the premises after the authority under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired, or has been duly determined. Under S. 105b the Commissioner, by notice served on the person in unauthorised occupation, could ask him to vacate if he had not paid for a period of more than two months the rent or taxes lawfully due from him in respect of such premises; or sub-let, contrary to the terms or conditions of his occupation, the whole or any part of such premises; or committed, or is committing, such acts of waste as are likely to diminish materially the value, or impair substantially the utility, of the premises; or otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy'. such premises; or if any person is in unauthorised occupation of any corporation premises; or any corporation premises in the occupation of any person are required by the corporation in the public interest. Before making such an order the Commissioner should issue a notice calling upon the person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made and specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made. The person concerned can file a written statement and produce documents and is entitled to appear before the Commissioner by advocate, attorney or pleader. Persons failing to comply with the order of eviction as well as any other person who obstructs eviction can be evicted by force. Under S. 105c there is power to recover rent or damages as arrears of property taxes. A person ordered to vacate on the grounds of being in arrears of rent or acting in contravention of the terms under which he is authorised to occupy the premises could be allowed to continue if he satisfies the Commissioner. The Commissioner has, for the purpose of holding any inquiry, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, when trying a suit. in respect of (a) summoning and enforcing the presence of any person and examining him on oath, (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents, and (c). my other matter which may be prescribed by regulations. An appeal from every order of the Commissioner lies to the principal Judge of the City Civil court or such other judicial officer as the principal Judge may designate. The appeal is to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the results of the appeal every order of the Commissioner or the appellate officer is final. The power to make regulations includes the power to make regulations in respect of holding of inquiries and the procedure to be followed in such appeals.

(2.) The provisions of the Bombay government Premises (Eviction) Act, are more or less similar except that they relate to government premises and the power to order eviction is given to the competent authority not lower in rank than that of a Deputy Collector or an Executive Engineer appointed by the State Government. The only other matter in respect of which the provisions of this Act differ from the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, just now referred to, is that S. 8a of this Act provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person from any government premises on any of the grounds specified in S. 4 or the recovery of the arrears of rent or the damages payable for use or occupation of such premises. This amendment was made as a consequence of the decision of this court in Northern India Caterers v. State of Punjab. But the matters arising under this Act and now before this court were in respect of proceedings taken before S. 8a was introduced in the Act by Maharashtra Act 12 of 1969, and this S. has, therefore, no relevance for the purposes of these cases.

(3.) It was not and could not be argued that the Acts in so far as they provided for special procedures applying to the State and the Municipal Corporation were invalid. The decisions in Baburao Shantaram More v. The Bombay Housing Board'upholding the exemption of premises belonging to the government or a local authority from the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; The Collector of Malabar v. Erimal Ebrahim Hajee upholding the provision for special modes of recovery for income-tax; Asgarali Nazarali Singaporawalla v. The State of Bombay upholding the validity of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 providing for the trial of all offences punishable under S. 161, 165 or 165-A of the Indian Penal Code, or Ss. (2) of S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 exclusively by Special Judges; Shri Manna Lal and Another v. Collector of Jhalawar and Others upholding the provision of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 for recovering moneys due to a State Bank; Nav Rattanmal v. State of Rajasthan upholding a special period of limitation for the government; Lachhman Das on behalf of Firm Tilak Ram Ram Bux v. State of Punjab upholding the provisions of an Act settingup separate authorities for determination of disputes and prescribing a special procedure to be followed by them for the recovery of the dues of a State Bank; and Builders Corp. v. Union of India apholding the doctrine of priority of Crown Debts, are all instances where special provisions applicable to the State were upheld. It cannot now be contended that special provision of law applying to government and public bodies is not based upon reasonable classification or that it offends Art. 14.