http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1033 of 2001

PETITIONER: LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

RESPONDENT: M/S. CASTLEWOOD (INDIA) RESPONDENT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/02/2008

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2001

       Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.07.2000 passed by the High Court  at Calcutta in C.O.No.2729 of 1998 this appeal has been preferred by the Life  Insurance Corporation of India.         Heard the parties at length.         Briefly stated the facts are as follows:         Undisputedly, the respondent is in the occupation of the public premises owned  by the Life Insurance Corporation of India.  The respondent filed application under  Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971  (hereinafter as ’the Act). Section 7 reads : "7.Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public  premises.

(1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any  public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to  pay the same within such time and in such installments as may be  specified in the order.                                         ...2/-

               : 2 :

(2)Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorised  occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having  regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be  prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of  such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the  damages within such time and in such  installments as may be specified  in the order.

(2A)While making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2),  the estate officer may direct that the arrears rent or, as the case may  be, damages shall be payable together with simple interest at such rate  as may be  prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of  interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1978.

(3)No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be made  against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the  person calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be  specified in the notice, why such order should not be made, and until  his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of  the same, have been considered by the estate officer."

       On a cursory reading of Section 7 it clearly appears that the power is exercisable  by the estate officer suo moto or on an application of the landlord/owner, and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

occupant of the premises  has absolutely no jurisdiction to file an application under  Section 7 of the Act. The only right available to the occupant is that under sub-section  (3) the authority must issue notice in writing to the occupant calling upon him to  show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why such order should  not be made.                                          ...3/-

                       : 3 :         In our view, the estate officer has rightly rejected the Section 7 application filed   by the respondent herein as not maintainable.  The High Court by a strange  reasoning allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent herein.           We may at this stage quote the reasoning of the High Court with regard to the  interpretation of Section 7 of the Act.  This is what the High Court said : "In my view, section 7 of the Act should be so interpreted  enabling a lawful occupier to come before Estate Officer before  he is illegally branded as a defaulter and a notice of eviction is  served upon him for the intention of the Act is that the dispute  referred to in section 7 should not be decided in any other suit  or proceeding."

       If such an interpretation is accepted it would amount to rewriting the Section  which power only belongs to the Legislature not the judiciary.           For the reasons aforestated the order passed by the High Court is set aside.  This appeal is allowed. The estate officer shall now proceed with PP case being  No.EO/180/0199 forthwith and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law  expeditiously.