Summary
Public-premises notices concerning a mill at Akola required the occupants to attend proceedings at Mumbai. The Supreme Court upheld their quashing because the notified local limits required proceedings at Akola, while directing fresh notices and preserving possession already obtained by the mill subject to final adjudication in the fresh proceedings.
Issues
- Whether proceedings concerning public premises at Akola could be conducted at Mumbai despite the notified local limits of the Estate Officer’s jurisdiction.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(b), Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971The Estate Officer had to exercise jurisdiction within the notified local limits; the notification identified the mill at Akola, requiring proceedings there. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 20)
Held
- The statutory reference to local limits required the Estate Officer to act in relation to premises within the area specified by notification. Since the mill was notified at Akola, the proceedings could only be initiated there, and the notices requiring attendance at Mumbai were rightly quashed for want of jurisdiction. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- Fresh notices were to issue within one month to the respondent and any persons claiming possession, followed by expeditious proceedings at Akola in accordance with law. If possession had already been obtained under an Estate Officer’s order, it would remain with the mill subject to final adjudication in the fresh proceedings. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
Result
All three appeals dismissed with the same directions: fresh notices within one month, proceedings at Akola, and existing dispossession subject to final adjudication.