Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Appellate Officer under Public Premises Act: LIC vs. Nandini J. Shah (20 February 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 123
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, Amitava Roy, J, A.M. Khanwilkar, J (Majority Opinion by A.M. Khanwilkar, J)

When a dispute arises over the eviction of occupants from public premises, who decides the appeal – a court or a designated individual? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and its tenants. This judgment clarifies the role of the Appellate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and has significant implications for how such disputes are handled. The core issue was whether the Appellate Officer, typically a District Judge, acts as a Civil Court or as a ‘persona designata’—an individual appointed for a specific task.

Case Background

The case began when the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) initiated eviction proceedings against Nandini J. Shah and others, who were occupying premises owned by LIC. The eviction was sought on the grounds that the tenant had illegally sublet the premises to a partnership firm and three companies, and was in arrears of repair and maintenance charges. The tenants contested the eviction, claiming that the sub-tenants were family members and that there were no arrears.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Estate Officer ruled against the tenants, finding that they had illegally sublet the premises. The tenants appealed to the Appellate Officer, who upheld the eviction order. The tenants then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. The tenants then filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the Single Judge. LIC then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. This section provides for an appeal against the order of the Estate Officer to an “appellate officer,” who is the District Judge of the district or another judicial officer designated by the District Judge. Section 10 of the same Act states that the order of the appellate officer is final. The Supreme Court also considered Section 8 of the Act, which grants the Estate Officer the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purpose of holding inquiries.

The relevant sections are:

• Section 9, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: “Appeals. —(1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under section 5 or section 5B or section 5C or section 7 to an appellate officer who shall be the district judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years standing as the district judge may designate in this behalf.”
• Section 10, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: “Finality of orders. – Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by an estate officer or appellate officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.”
• Section 8, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: “Power of estate officers. – An estate officer shall, for the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely: – (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) any other matter which may be prescribed.”

Arguments

Appellant (LIC) Arguments:

• The Appellate Officer, when acting under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act, functions as a Civil Court and not as a persona designata.
• The remedy against the order of the Appellate Officer would be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, not Article 226.
• The Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court was not maintainable.
• The District Judge exercises judicial powers of the State and is a pre-existing authority, not a persona designata.

Respondents (Tenants) Arguments:

• The Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act acts as a persona designata and not as a Civil Court.
• The Appellate Officer is a creature of the statute, and the powers exercised are circumscribed by the special law.
• The order of the Appellate Officer is final under Section 10, indicating that the officer is not acting as a court.
• The remedy against the decision of the Appellate Officer is by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondents before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against the decision of the learned Single Judge was maintainable?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions to arrive at its decision. These authorities were used to determine the status of the Appellate Officer under the Public Premises Act.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Thakur Das (Dead) by LRs vs. State of M.P. & Anr. [1978 (1) SCC 27]* and Mukri Gopalan vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker [1995 (5) SCC 5]*, which clarified that a judicial authority is not a persona designata but a pre-existing authority exercising judicial power.
• The Supreme Court also relied on Central Talkies Ltd. vs. Dwarka Prasad [1961 (3) SCR 495]* and Ram Chander Aggarwal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [1966 Supp. SCR 393]* to define persona designata.
• The Court followed Asnew Drums (P) Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Finance Corporation [1971 (3) SCC 602]* and Maharashtra State Financial Corporation vs. Jaycee Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. [1991 (2) SCC 637]* to reiterate that a District Judge is not a persona designata.
• The Supreme Court relied on Radhey Shyam & Another vs. Chabbi Nath & Ors. [2015 (5) SCC 423]*, Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana [2017(5) SCC 533]* and Jogendrasinhji Vijay Sinhji vs State of Gujarat [2015 (9) SCC 1]* to determine the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals.
• The Supreme Court overruled the Bombay High Court’s decisions in Nusli Neville Wadia vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2010 (2) Mh.L.J.978]* and Prakash Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corp. of India & Anr. [2012 (4) Bom. C.R.1]*, and the Delhi High Court’s decision in N.P. Berry vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [15(1979) DLT 108]* to the extent that they held the Appellate Officer to be a persona designata.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to maintain the established judicial hierarchy and ensure that orders of civil courts are challenged through the appropriate legal channels. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act is a pre-existing judicial authority, not a designated individual, and therefore, the remedy against the Appellate Officer’s order lies under Article 227 of the Constitution, which pertains to the High Court’s power of superintendence over subordinate courts, and not under Article 226, which pertains to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction. The court also focused on the fact that the District Judge or the designated judicial officer under Section 9 exercises judicial power of the State, and is part of a pre-existing judicial system.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning included:

• The Appellate Officer under Section 9 is a pre-existing judicial authority.
• The power exercised by the Appellate Officer is a judicial power of the State.
• The District Judge or designated judicial officer is part of the district judiciary.
• The remedy against orders of the Appellate Officer lies under Article 227, not Article 226.

The Court rejected the argument that the Appellate Officer is a persona designata, emphasizing that the officer is part of a class of judicial officers, not an individual designated for a specific task. The Court also clarified that the remedy against the order of a civil court is under Article 227 of the Constitution, and not under Article 226.

“The thrust of Section 9(1) is to provide for remedy of an appeal against the order of the Estate Officer before the District Judge who , undeniably , is a pre existing authority and head of the judiciary within the district , discharging judicial power of the State including power to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and to grant interim relief during the pendency of the appeal.”

“The District Judge or Principal Judge of the City Civil Court is the officer presiding over the Court and derives his description from the nomenclature of the Court. Even if the District Judge/Principal Judge of the City Civil Court might retire or get transferred , his successor -in-office can pick up the thread of the proceedings under Section 9 of the 1971 Act from the stage where it was left by his predecessor and can function as an appellate authority.”

“In other words , the Appellate Officer while exercising power under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, does not act as a persona designata but in his capacity as a pre existing judicial authority in the district (being a District Judge or judicial officer possessing essential qualification designated by the District Judge ).”

Key Takeaways

• Orders passed by the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act are considered orders of a Civil Court.
• Challenges to such orders must be made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the High Court’s power of superintendence over subordinate courts.
• Letters Patent Appeals against the orders of a Single Judge of the High Court in such matters are not maintainable.
• The District Judge or designated judicial officer under Section 9 exercises judicial power of the State, and is part of a pre-existing judicial system.
• This decision clarifies that the Appellate Officer is not a persona designata but a pre-existing judicial authority.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. The respondents were given six weeks to challenge the decision of the learned Single Judge by way of appropriate remedy. If they fail to do so, the appellant is free to proceed with the eviction order.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment has clarified the status of the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act, establishing that the officer acts as a Civil Court and not as a persona designata. This decision has overruled the previous position taken by the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court on this issue. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the remedy against the order of the Appellate Officer lies under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and not Article 226, and therefore no intra-court appeal is maintainable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah & Ors. clarifies that the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, acts as a Civil Court and not as a persona designata. This means that the remedy against the orders of the Appellate Officer lies under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 226. As a result, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the order of the Single Judge in such matters. This judgment has significant implications for how disputes under the Public Premises Act are handled, reinforcing the judicial hierarchy and ensuring that orders of civil courts are challenged through the appropriate legal channels.