INDIA BUSINESS WORLD - DECEMBER 16th - DECEMBER 31st
- 2007
SUPREME COURT DIRECTS ESTATE OFFICER TO DECIDE ON NUSLI WADIA'S EVICTION
The Supreme Court has asked the estate officer to decide the case related to the eviction of Bombay Dyeing chief Nusli Wadia from an apartment in Mumbai's posh Mayfair Gardens as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The National Insurance Co, the owner of the building has sought eviction of Wadia, the head of Rs 1,000-crore textile co who is in the occupation of an apartment in its multi crore building.
A bench comprising Justice SB Sinha and Justice HS Bedi said: "The proceedings before the estate officer, being summary in nature, the cases must go on a day-to-day basis. The estate officer is directed to pass a final order as expeditiously as possible but not beyond a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." The apex court passed order on December 13.
The court said: "We, however, must not shut our eyes to the objects for which the Act (Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971) was enacted. It provided for a speedy remedy. The estate officer is expected to arrive at a decision as expeditiously as possible."
The insurance co had issued a notice terminating the tenancy of Wadia on February 9, 2001. However, on the premise that no ground of eviction had been mentioned, another notice was issued on February 18, 2002, enumerating the grounds of eviction.
Then, the owner of the building had filed an application before the estate officer praying for eviction of Wadia and for damages for unauthorised occupation of the premises with effect from April 1, 2002, @ Rs 4,91,700/ per month with interest @ 9% per annum. The estate officer purported to be satisfied that the occupation of Wadia was unauthorised and that an order of eviction may have been passed against it issued a show-cause notice to him on July 28, 2003, under Section 4 of the Act.
The estate officer on the plea of the owner passed an order asking Wadia to lead evidence. Wadia, however, filed an application seeking modification of the order and direction to the insurance co to lead its evidence first and offer its witnesses for cross-examination by his advocate. It was rejected by the estate officer by an order passed on Jan 12, 2006. Against it, Wadia had approached Bombay high court which allowed his petition.
Aggrieved by that, the Insurance Co had come to the apex court which however, dismissed its appeal.
|
