TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order was vitiated by mala fides and bias. (ii) Whether breach of the lease conditions, including non-user of the premises for press activity and transfer of beneficial interest, justified re-entry and proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Issue (i): Whether the impugned order was vitiated by mala fides and bias.
Analysis: Allegations of mala fide must be supported by specific and credible material. The pleadings disclosed only broad assertions of political motive, bias and an oblique design, without particulars showing who acted with what motive or how the decision was tainted. In the absence of supporting instances or material, such allegations could not be accepted.
Conclusion: The allegation of mala fides was rejected and did not vitiate the impugned order.
Issue (ii): Whether breach of the lease conditions, including non-user of the premises for press activity and transfer of beneficial interest, justified re-entry and proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Analysis: The inspection material showed that no printing press was functioning in the premises and that the property was being used largely for office and commercial purposes. The Court held that the dominant purpose for which the premises had been leased was lost, and that the lease conditions were breached. It further held that the transfer of 99% shareholding and the resulting takeover of control amounted, in substance, to a transfer falling within the restrictive covenant in the lease deed. The Court also treated the premises as public premises for the purposes of action under the Act, and found no bar to the respondent invoking the statutory eviction mechanism.
Conclusion: The lease breaches and the change in control justified re-entry and action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Final Conclusion: The challenge failed, and the respondent's decision to resume the premises was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Bald allegations of mala fides do not dislodge an otherwise reasoned administrative action, and where the leased public premises are no longer used for the dominant contractual purpose, the lessor may invoke the public premises eviction mechanism for breach of lease conditions.
TaxTMI 
