2018 INSC 0544
         REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 751 OF 2008
Savatram Rampratap Mills           .. Appellant(s)
Versus
Radheyshyam s/o Laxminarayan
Goenka(D) Thr. LRs. & Anr.           .. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9700 OF 2014
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9704 OF 2014
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.751 OF 2008
1. This   appeal   is  filed  against   the  final   judgment
and order dated 16.01.2007 passed by  the Division
1

Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Bombay,
Nagpur   Bench,   Nagpur   in   L.P.A.   No.46     of   2004
whereby   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
dismissed   the   appeal   filed   by   the   appellant   herein
and   upheld   the   order   dated   25.11.2003   passed   by
the   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   in   Writ   Petition
No.1795 of 2003 by which the writ petition filed by
respondent   No.1   herein   was   allowed   and   the   order
passed   by   the   Estate   Officer   of   the   National   Textile
Corporation   Ltd.   (respondent   No.2   herein)   was   set
aside.
2. Few   facts   need   to   be   mentioned   infra   for
disposal   of   the   appeal,   which   involves   a   short
question.
3. The appellant was originally a privately owned
Company   situated   at   Akola   (Maharashtra).   It   was
engaged   in   the   business   of   manufacture   of   cotton.
2

This   Mill   was   later   taken   over   by   the   National
Textile   Corporation   (Maharashtra)   Ltd.,   which   is   a
subsidiary   of   NTC­a   Government   of   India
Undertaking. 
4. Since the appellant became the Government of
India Undertaking, the provisions of Public Premises
(Eviction   of   Unauthorized   Occupants)   Act,   1971
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Act”)   became
applicable to the appellant’s Mills.
5. On   25.06.1993   and   04.04.2003,   the   Estate
Officer   of   the   appellant   issued   the   notices   under
Sections 4 and 7 (3) of the Act to respondent No.1’s
predecessor,     who   was   alleged   to   be   in   an
unauthorized   occupation   of   the   appellant's
premises,   and   called   upon   him   to   vacate   the
premises specified in  the  notices. He was, however,
3

asked   to   attend   the   proceedings,   pursuant   to   the
notices, at  Mumbai . 
6. Respondent   No.1’s     predecessor   felt   aggrieved
by   the   issuance   of   the   notices,   particularly,   that
part   of   the   notices,   which   had   directed   him   to
attend   the   proceedings   at   Mumbai,   and  filed   a   writ
petition   in   High   Court   of   Bombay   at   Nagpur
questioning the legality and validity of the notices.
7.   The   challenge   to   the   notices   was   essentially
on   the   ground   that   when   the   public   premises   in
question   is   situated   at   Akola   then   the   proceedings
in   relation   to   such   public   premises   has   to   be   held
only at Akola rather than at Mumbai where no part
of the cause of action had arisen. 
8. In   other   words,   the   contention   was   that   when
admittedly   the   entire   cause   of   action   to   initiate   the
proceedings   under   the   Act   had   arisen   at   Akola
4

within   the   local   limits   specified   in   notification
issued   under   Section   3   where   the   public   premises
in   question   is   situated,   the     respondent   No.1's
predecessor   cannot   be   asked   to   attend   the
proceedings   at   Mumbai   and   the   proceedings   under
the   Act   can   only   be   validly   initiated   at   Akola   that
being   within   the   local   limits   specified   in   the
notification issued under Section 3 of the Act.
9. The   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   accepted
the   ground   raised   by   the   respondents   herein   (writ
petitioners)   and   by   his   order   dated   25.11.2003
allowed   the   writ   petition,   in   consequence,   quashed
the impugned notices. It was held that the appellant
would   be   free   to   initiate   the   proceedings   under   the
Act   in   relation   to   public   premises   in   question   at
Akola. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed Letters
Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. 
5

10. By impugned order, the Division Bench upheld
the order passed by the Single Judge and dismissed
the   appeal,   which   has   given   rise   to   filing   of   the
present   appeal   by   way   of   special   leave   by   the
appellant­Mills in this Court.
11. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are   inclined   to   dismiss   the   appeal   finding   no   merit
therein.
12. In  our  considered opinion,   the  Division  Bench
in the impugned order rightly upheld the view taken
by   the   Single   Judge   calling   for   no   interference   in
this appeal.
13. The   short   question,   which   arose   for
consideration before the High Court, was that when
the public premises in question is situated at Akola,
whether   the   proceedings   in   relation   to   such   public
6

premises can be initiated under  the Act at Mumbai
or   it   has   to   be   initiated   at   Akola,   that   being   the
place   falling   in   the   local   limits   specified   in   the
notification   issued   under   Section   3   of   the   Act   for
exercise of jurisdiction by the Estate Officer.
14. Section   3(b)   of   the   Act,   which   is   relevant   for
this case, reads as under:
“ 3.   Appointment   of   estate   officers­   The
Central   Government   may,   by   notification   in
the Official Gazette­
(a)……………………………
(b)     define   the   local   limits   within   which,   or
the   categories   of   public   premises   in   respect
of   which,   the   estate   officers   shall   exercise
the powers conferred, and perform the duties
imposed,   on   estate   officers   by   or   under   this
Act.”
15. Construing   the   expression   " local   limits   within
which " occurring in Section 3(b) of the Act, the High
Court   held   and,   in   our   opinion,   rightly   that   the
Estate   Officer   has   to   exercise   its   jurisdiction   in
7

relation   to   the   public   premises   falling   in   the   local
limits specified in the notification.
16. Since   in   this   case,   the   notification   (Annexure
P­1),   in   clear   terms,   specified   that   the   Mill   is
situated   at   Akola   [see   Item   5(15)],   a   fortiori ,   the
proceedings   in   relation   to   such   public   premises
under   the   Act   could   only   be   initiated   at   Akola­that
being the area falling in the local limits specified in
the notification for exercise of powers by the Estate
Officer.       The   High   Court   was,   therefore,   right   in
interpreting   Section   3(b)   of   the   Act   and,   in
consequence,   was   legally   justified   in   quashing   the
notices   impugned   in   the   writ   petition   as   being
without jurisdiction. 
17. Before parting, we consider it apposite to state
that   the   appellant   would   be   free   to   issue   fresh
notices   to   respondent   No.1   under   the   Act   and
8

initiate   the   proceedings   for   their   eviction   from   the
public premises at Akola. 
18. If   the   respondents   are   dispossessed   on   the
strength   of   any   order   passed   by   the   Estate   Officer,
the possession will remain with the appellant but it
will   be   subject   to   final   adjudication   of   the
proceedings once initiated by the appellant. 
19. Let   fresh   notices   be   issued   by   the   appellant
within   one   month   from   the   date   of   this   order   to
respondent   No.1   or/and   to   any   person(s),   who
claim(s)   to   be   in   possession   in   relation   to   specified
public premises under the Act.
20. The   proceedings   be   held   at   Akola­that   being
the proper place for deciding the proceedings under
the Act, as specified in the notification issued under
Section 3 referred supra. 
9

21. The   proceedings,   once   initiated,   be   completed
expeditiously strictly in accordance with law.    
22. With   these   directions,   the   appeal   fails   and   is
accordingly dismissed. 
IN CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 9700 & 9704 of 2014
In   view   of   the   above   order   passed   in   C.A.
No.751   of   2008,   these   appeals   are   also   dismissed
with the same directions.
                         
… ...……..................................J.
         [ ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ]
……… ...................................J.
     [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2018 
10