A.V. GEORGE v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD** **TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1939** **RSA.No. 82 of 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 23-08-2017 IN AS 121/2016 of I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 05-03-2009 IN OS 669/2008 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR** ## **APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF** **A.V.GEORGE AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, ARANGASSERY HOUSE, KURIACHIRA, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR** **BY ADV.SMT.P.K.PRIYA** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:** **PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER 680 001** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR** **THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2018, ALONG WITH RSA 84/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **A. HARIPRASAD, J.** ## **-------------------------------** ## **R.S.A.Nos.82 & 84 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 06[th] day of March, 2018** ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** Appellants are the tenants in a building owned by the Punjab National Bank, a body corporate, constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Appellants approached the trial court with suits seeking prohibitory injunction decree against the respondent from forcefully evicting them from the buildings other than by taking recourse to the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, the BRC Act). The trial court considered the question of maintainability of the suits as preliminary point and found that by virtue of the provisions in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (in short, the Act of 1971) the suits are not maintainable. Hence, both the suits were dismissed by a common judgment. 2. Aggrieved by the findings, the appellants went in **RSA Nos.82 & 84 of 2018** **2** separate appeals before the First Additional Sub Judge, Thrissur. Learned Sub Judge, after considering the submissions made, dismissed the appeals confirming the findings of the trial Judge. Hence, the plaintiffs are before this Court in the second appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that the courts below erred in not appreciating the contentions raised by the appellants that they are entitled to get protection under the BRC Act. Another contention raised by the learned counsel is that the Senior Manager of the Bank issued a notice for terminating the tenancy in favour of the appellants and wanted them to vacate the premises. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that he has no authority to demand eviction and, under the provisions of the Act of 1971, the Estate Officer only has the right to claim eviction if it is a public premises defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. For that reason also, the attempted eviction is illegal. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, they were tenants under the erstwhile Nedungadi Bank Ltd, which was amalgamated with the **RSA Nos.82 & 84 of 2018** **3** Punjab National Bank with effect from 31.01.2003. It is the case of the appellants that after merging of the Nedungadi Bank with the Punjab National Bank, they attorned to the Punjab National Bank by paying rent. Since these aspects are not disputed, it can only be found that the appellants are at present tenants under the Punjab National Bank. 5. The question then arises for decision is whether the tenanted premises would fall within the definition of public premises in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1971. It reads as follows: ((e) “public premises” means- - (1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes any such premises which have been placed by the Government, whether before or after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980, under the control of the Secretariat of either House of Parliament for providing residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that Secretariat; - (2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of,- - (i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government or any company which is a subsidiary (within the **RSA Nos.82 & 84 of 2018** **4** meaning of that Act) of the first-mentioned company; - (ii) any Corporation (not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), or a local authority) established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government, - (iii) any company as defined in clause (20) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up captial is held partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments and includes a company which is a subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act) of the first-mentioned company and which carries on the business of public transport including metro railway. - (iiia) any University established or incorporated by any Centrail Act, - (iv) any Institute incorporated by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 (59 of 1961), - (v) any Board of Trustees or any successor company constituted under or referred to in the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (38 of 1963), - (vi) the Bhakra Management Board constituted under Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), and that Board as and when renamed as the Bhakra-Beas Management Board under sub-section (6) of Section 80 of that Act; - (vii) any State Government or the Government of any Union Territory situated in the National Capital Territory of Delhi or in any other Union **RSA Nos.82 & 84 of 2018** **5** ## Territory; - (viii) any Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924); and) - (3) in relation to the (National Capital Territory of Delhi),- - (i) any premises belonging to the Council as defined in clause (9) of section 2 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (44 of 1994) or Corporation or Corporations notified under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (66 of 1957), of Delhi, or any Municipal Committee or notified area committee, - (ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development Authority, whether such premises are in the possession of, or leased out by, the said Authority; (and) - (iii) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of any State Government or the Government of any Union Territory;) - (iv) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of any Government company as defined in clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) 6. Relying on **Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank [AIR 1991 SC 855]** , learned counsel for the respondent Bank contended that the question whether premises belonging to a nationalised bank will fall within the definition of **RSA Nos.82 & 84 of 2018** **6** Section 2(e) of the Act of 1971, is no more res integra. In the said decision, the Supreme court considered the case relating to the Punjab National Bank itself and entered a finding that a nationalised bank is a corporation established by a Central Act and it is owned and controlled by the Central Government. The premises belonging to a nationalised bank is public premises defined under Section 2(e)2(ii) of the Act of 1971. Therefore, there cannot be a dispute that the appellants are bound by the provisions of the Act. 7. Referring to Section 15 of the Act of 1971, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of eviction of any person, who is in unauthorised occupation of a public premise. The Section reads thus: ## 15. **Bar of jurisdiction** No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of - (a) the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, or - (b) the removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal from any public premises under Section 5A, or **RSA Nos.82 & 84 of 2018** **7** - (c) the demolition of any building or other structure made, or ordered to be made, under Sectin 5B, or - (cc) the sealing of any erection or work or of any public premises under Section 5C, or - (d) the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of section 7 or damages payable under subsection (2), or interest payable under sub-section (2A), of that section, or - (e) the recovery of- - (i) costs of removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal under section 5A, or - (ii) expenses of demolition under section 5B, or - (iii) costs awarded to the Central Government or statutory authority under sub-section (5) of section 9, or - (iv) any portion of such rent, damages, costs of removal, expenses of demolition or costs awarded to the Central Government or the statutory authority. 8. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that after dismissal of the suit, the Bank caused to issue a notice to the appellants through its Estate Officer invoking provisions under Section 4 of the Act of 1971, to which the appellants have sent separate reply notices. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I find that **RSA Nos.82 & 84 of 2018** **8** the judgments of the courts below are legally correct and warrant no interference. The contentions of the appellants that they are going to be thrown out without taking recourse to law, cannot be upheld. However, the appellants, whose tenancies have been terminated, will have all the rights and privileges provided under the Act of 1971. The impugned judgments by the courts below cannot be said to be faulty. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. JV Sd/- **A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE**