HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the eviction order dated 30.12.1996 passed by the Estate Officer, UCO Bank (respondent No. 2) on the basis of proceedings initiated, under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Act') against M/s. Brooke Bond India Limited, who was lessee of the second floor of S.C.O. Nos. 55-57. Sector 17-B, Chandigarh belonging to UCO Bank (respondent No. 3). It has also prayedfor setting aside the judgment dated 4.1.1999 rendered by the District Judge. Chandigarh dismissing the appeal filed by M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited.

(2.) It is not disputed that M/s. Brooke Bond India Limited was initially amalgamated with M/s. Lipton India Limited and the new Company, namely, Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited, was amalgamated with petitioner- Hindustan Lever Limited. The premises in question were leased out by respondent No. 3 to M/s. Brooke Bond India Limited on 26.2.1966. Vide notice dated 25.2.1991 issued by the Advocate of respondent No. 3, the lessee was called upon to vacate the premises in question on the ground that the tenure of lease has expired by efflux of time Thereafter, proceedings for eviction were initiated by respondent No. 2 by issuing notice under Section 4 of the 1971 Act. The petitioner submitted reply dated 20.7.1991 to contest the proposed eviction by asserting that appointment of the Estate Officer was not in accordance with law and that there was no justification to pass the order of eviction. Respondent No. 2 controverted the objections raised by the petitioner by filing a counter reply. After hearing representatives of the parties. respondent No. 2 passed order .of eviction Annexure P8 dated 30.12.1996. The appeal filed by the lessee against the order of eviction has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh.

(3.) Mr. M.L. Sarin argued that the order of eviction passed by respondent No. 2 should be declared as nullity because the notification, dated 16.4.1998 issued by the Government of India for appointment of the Officers of respondent No. 3 as Estate Officers is ultra vires to Section 3 of the 1971 Act. He submitted that the appointment of the Assistant General Manager (General Administration) and the various Zonal Managers by designation is alien to the provisions of Section 3 of the 1971 Act and, therefore, respondent No. 2, who was, at the relevant time, holding the post of Zonal Manager could not have exercised the power of the Estate Officer. The other contention of Mr. Sarin is that the order of ejectment passed by respondent No. 2 should be quashed on the ground of violation of Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act because the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing and also because the reasons which constituted the basis of the impugned order were not communicated to it. Elaborating his argument that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing as contemplated by Section 5(1), learned Counsel submitted that respondent No. 2 did not give permission to the petitioner to lead evidence to substantiate the objections raised on its behalf to the legality of the notice issued under Seqtion 4 of the 1971 Act. He further argued that the failure of respondent No, 2 to communicate reasons which constituted the basis of the order of eviction has the effect of vitiating the order Annexure P2. Learned Counsel submitted that due to noncommunication of the reasons, the petitioner was prevented from effectively availing the statutory remedy of appeal available to it under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. In support of his arguments. Mr Sarin relied on the following decisions : 1. M.K. Bakshi, Deputy-Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiah v. The State of Punjab & Ors. 2. M/s. Ajanta Industries & Ors. v. Centra/ Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi & Ors. 3. Mdhlnder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors- 4. C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors."; 5. Mohammad Jafar v. Union of India, 6. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar": 7. M/s. Brij Bassi Hitech Udyog Limited v. State of Punjab & Ors : and 8. Geeta Devi v. Chandigarh Administration through its Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh