Under challenge is the order in C.M.A.No. 102/2011 dated 27.05.2013 whereby the court below dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows:
Admittedly, the petitioner was holding a property on lease under the first respondent and he was allowed to put up structures. He did so. The original term of lease expired in the year 2009. The case of the petitioner is that even prior to the expiry of the period of lease, he applied for extension period. He received a reply saying that the Port Trust had taken a decision to extend the lease up to 2012 and a proposal to that effect was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the same. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the respondents for eviction of petitioner from the premises. The petitioner approached this Court as per W.P.(C) No. 8237/2010 challenging the notice issued by the petitioner. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner dated 26.02.2010. In pursuance to the consideration of the said representation made by the petitioner, the Port Authority found that there is no merit in the request made by the petitioner and rejected the same. That was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 33174/2010 before this Court and this Court then directed the petitioner to resort to appropriate statutory remedies available to him. In pursuance to the said direction, the petitioner filed C.M.A. before the District Court.
3. The District Court, after considering the rival contentions and also materials on record, found that there was nothing to show that there was renewal of lease as contended by the petitioner in 18.01.2009 and that since the time was expired long ago, proceedings taken by the respondents is valid and binding and there was no reason to interfere with the notice of eviction issued by the respondents.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the said findings on several grounds. It is pointed out that notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, is absolutely necessary before the lease can be validly terminated. It was then contended that there was evidence to show that subsequent to the issuance of notice of termination and eviction, the respondents have accepted rent thereby indicating that a fresh arrangement had been made by the parties which has not been terminated. The learned counsel pointed out that the lower appellate court has erred in not considering the various documents produced by him which would show the payment of rent subsequent to the notice.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that even assuming for argument sake that the so called proposal which was forwarded to the petitioner was accepted and there is a contract, the term of lease expired in 2012 and therefore continuance thereafter cannot be termed as legal. Viewed from that angle also there is no reason to interfere with the order of the court below.
6. In the light of the Act 40 of 1971, the contention based on Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act does not arise for consideration at all. The first contention has necessarily to fail.
7. The court below, on evidence found that there is nothing to show that the rent as claimed by the petitioner has been paid subsequent to the period of expiry of lease and issuance of the notice by the respondents.
8. Even assuming that there was extension of lease as contended by the petitioner, that came to an end in 2012 and subsequent to that, continuing in the premises is unauthorized. Thus viewed from any angle, the continuance of the petitioner in the premises cannot be justified.
9. It was then contended that it could not be said that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation so as to attract the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971. That contention cannot stand in the light of the definition of unauthorized occupation as contained in Act 40 of 1971 which reads as follows:
“Unauthorised occupation, in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.”
10. It is not in dispute that there was a termination of lease. Viewed from any angle, it therefore could not be said that there is no unauthorized occupation though term of lease had expired or the notice had been issued. In the case on hand, under Section 4(1) and Section 2(b)(ii) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 notice has been issued and the receipt of which was not disputed. It follows that there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this case.
This Civil Revision Petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
ds //True copy// Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE P.A. to Judge