Judgment Date: September 11, 2024
In a landmark ruling, the Calcutta High Court has quashed the eviction proceedings initiated by the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) against Priyadarshini Educational Society. The court held that the eviction notice issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, was invalid, and the matter should be taken up by a civil court due to the complex legal issues surrounding the case.
Body:
The Calcutta High Court, presided by Justice Shampa Sarkar, delivered a significant verdict on September 11, 2024, in the case of Priyadarshini Educational Society and another vs. Steel Authority of India and others (WPA 22009 of 2023), quashing the eviction notice served to the society by SAIL.
The case revolved around the notice issued by the Estate Officer of SAIL’s IISCO Steel Plant in Burnpur, which sought to evict the society from premises it had occupied under a registered lease agreement. The premises, located in Kulti, Asansol, housed the Priyadarshini Public School, an English-medium institution that served the children of SAIL employees and the local community.
Legal Dispute Over Lease Agreement
The conflict stemmed from a dispute regarding a registered lease deed dated December 28, 2012, executed between SAIL and the society. The petitioners argued that the lease was valid for 33 years, granting them legal possession of the property. However, SAIL contested the lease, alleging that it was forged and unauthorized, claiming the deed was executed without proper authorization from SAIL’s board of directors.
SAIL issued an eviction notice on August 31, 2023, accusing the society of unauthorized occupation and failure to pay dues amounting to ₹22.13 lakh. The notice was challenged in court by the society on the grounds that the eviction proceedings were unjustified, as the lease was still in effect.
High Court’s Ruling
Justice Sarkar, after carefully considering the evidence, concluded that the eviction notice could not stand. The court noted that the lease agreement, being a registered document, carried a presumption of validity under the law. Unless SAIL successfully proved in a civil court that the lease was fraudulent or unauthorized, the society’s possession of the premises could not be considered illegal.
The court also observed that SAIL had filed a police complaint alleging forgery and misrepresentation related to the lease. However, these allegations required a thorough examination of evidence, which could only be adjudicated by a civil court and not the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act.
Key Takeaways:
- The court held that complex legal issues surrounding the lease, including questions of forgery and authorization, could not be resolved in summary eviction proceedings.
- The presumption of the lease’s validity remains intact until successfully challenged in a civil court.
- The court emphasized that the Estate Officer lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters, reinforcing the need for a civil trial.
Conclusion
The ruling provides significant relief to Priyadarshini Educational Society, allowing it to continue operating the school at the premises for now. The court’s decision highlights the limitations of the Public Premises Act in resolving disputes involving complex property rights and fraud allegations. The ball is now in SAIL’s court, which may pursue a civil suit to prove its claims and seek further legal remedies.
No Costs Awarded: The court ordered no costs for either party.
Judgment name & Citation:
Priyadarshini Educational Society and another vs. Steel Authority of India and others (WPA 22009 of 2023)
Legislations referred:
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971
- Section 4(1), 4(2)(b)(ii): Related to the eviction process of unauthorized occupants.
- Section 7(3): Pertains to the recovery of arrears or dues from unauthorized occupants.
- Section 2(g): Defines “unauthorized occupants.”
- Section 8: Confers powers of a civil court upon the Estate Officer to summon witnesses and receive evidence.
- Section 15: Bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in matters of eviction under the Act.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
- Section 7: Deals with the competence of a person to transfer property.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 114(1)(e): Presumption of correctness for registered documents.
Companies Act, 1956
- Section 293(1): Requires a board resolution for granting leases of company property.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Section 119(1)(e): Corresponding provision to the Indian Evidence Act for presumption of correctness of registered documents.
