The Bombay High Court has ruled that once a tenancy in public premises is validly terminated, occupants become unauthorised occupants, and security assessments by expert agencies can legitimately form the basis for eviction proceedings. The Court accepted RBI’s reliance on security assessments prepared by agencies such as the Intelligence Bureau and Mumbai Police, holding that security risks must be evaluated from the perspective of the public authority and expert agencies.
The Court found that the passage of time between the preparation of the reports and initiation of action did not make the proceedings illegal, especially when the security concerns remained relevant. Since proceedings before the Estate Officer are summary in nature, the Court held that security reports could be relied upon even without examining every officer involved in their preparation, provided principles of natural justice are followed.
The Court observed that once the occupation authority is lawfully terminated and rent control protection is unavailable, continued occupation becomes unauthorised under the Public Premises Act. Finding no jurisdictional error or perversity in the decisions of the Estate Officer and the appellate court, the Court refused to exercise supervisory jurisdiction to upset the eviction orders.
Briefly, the dispute concerned portions of the fourth floor of Amar Building at Fort, Mumbai, occupied by three group companies of the Reunion Group, namely Munjee Nathoobhoy & Company Pvt Ltd., Reunion Pvt Ltd., and Reunion Engineering Company Pvt Ltd. The building was purchased by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 1947. Although earlier tenancy arrangements existed, RBI terminated the tenancies in 2009 and initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
RBI relied on security assessments made by the Intelligence Bureau, Mumbai Police, and later its own security branch, which recommended removal of non-RBI occupants from Amar Building due to security concerns. The Estate Officer ordered eviction in April 2013, the City Civil Court upheld that decision in January 2014, and the tenants challenged those orders before the Bombay High Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act, an Estate Officer is only required to have information regarding unauthorised occupation before issuing a show-cause notice. The statute does not require a prior formal satisfaction or detailed written opinion. Therefore, the tenants could not invalidate the proceedings merely because the show-cause notice was based on security reports prepared a few years earlier.
The Court further held that delay in acting upon security reports does not make the eviction proceedings invalid. The security reports of 2002, 2005, and 2010 consistently highlighted risks arising from the presence of non-RBI entities and their visitors inside Amar Building. According to the Court, security perception must be judged from the standpoint of RBI and the concerned security agencies rather than from the perspective of the occupants.
On the challenge to the admissibility of the security reports, the Court observed that proceedings under the Public Premises Act are summary in nature and strict rules of evidence do not apply. The reports had been supplied to the tenants, opportunities for cross-examination were provided, and principles of natural justice were adequately complied with. The Court held that it was not necessary for RBI to examine every officer who participated in preparing the security reports.
The Court also rejected the allegation that RBI was acting arbitrarily or with a commercial motive. It noted that RBI relied on material supplied by expert security agencies and there was no evidence that the premises were sought to be recovered for commercial exploitation or for re-letting purposes.
Importantly, the Court observed that after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Vita, public premises governed by the Public Premises Act do not enjoy protection under rent control legislation for eviction matters. Once such protection is unavailable, occupation continues merely as a monthly tenancy, which can be terminated by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
