Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act

Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an eviction order issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971 (PP Act). The Bench, led by Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta, held that the Estate Officer had jurisdiction under the PP Act as the property in question was public premises, and no bona fide dispute existed regarding ownership. The court emphasized the availability of statutory remedies under the PP Act, directing the petitioner to file an appeal instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

The dispute arose from a 10-year lease granted in 2013 by the Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata (SPMPK), to Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited for five sites to install weighbridges. The lease explicitly included a non-renewal clause and expired on December 9, 2023, by efflux of time.
Following the expiration of the lease, SPMPK initiated eviction proceedings under the PP Act, which culminated in an eviction order dated December 4, 2024. The petitioner challenged the eviction proceedings, citing procedural irregularities, alleged bias of the Estate Officer, and the existence of bona fide disputes over lease renewal.
"The Public Premises Act Bars Civil Court Jurisdiction and Permits Eviction Through Summary Proceedings"
The petitioner argued that the Estate Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings under the PP Act, given the pendency of disputes regarding lease renewal. The court rejected this contention, holding that the property in question qualified as "public premises" under the Act, and no ownership dispute existed.
"In the present case, the petitioner has failed to show, even prima facie, that there exists a bona fide dispute regarding ownership or holding possession of the property. Therefore, the Estate Officer had ample jurisdiction to proceed under Section 4 of the Act," the court stated [Para 19].
The court reaffirmed that the PP Act's provisions bar the jurisdiction of civil courts, as outlined in Sections 10 and 13 of the Act, rendering orders by the Estate Officer final unless appealed through prescribed mechanisms.
The petitioner claimed that its request for a 30-year lease renewal created a bona fide dispute, which should preclude eviction under the PP Act. The court dismissed this claim, noting that mere pendency of requests or litigation regarding lease renewal does not amount to a bona fide dispute.
"A lessee, especially under an agreement with a non-renewal clause, cannot create a bona fide dispute merely by requesting an extension of the lease," the court held.
The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Kaikhosrou (CHICK) Kavasji Framji v. Union of India (2019), which held that a bona fide dispute regarding ownership is a prerequisite to ousting the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under the PP Act.
"In the absence of any ownership dispute, the bar under Kaikhosrou does not apply. The Estate Officer is well within his authority to adjudicate the matter," the court observed [Para 13].
The petitioner alleged that the Estate Officer functioned as a "captive tribunal" of SPMPK, lacking independence. However, the court rejected these claims, citing the absence of specific pleadings or evidence of bias.
"It is well established that allegations of bias or malice must be specifically pleaded and substantiated. In this case, the petitioner has failed to do so," the court remarked [Para 11].
The court also referred to Supreme Court rulings in Accountant and Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1988) and Crawford Bayley and Co. v. Union of India (2006), which upheld the PP Act's framework and the competence of the Estate Officer.
The court highlighted the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 9 of the PP Act, allowing aggrieved parties to file an appeal against eviction orders before the Appellate Authority.
"Judicial prudence dictates that where the statute provides for an alternative remedy, the High Court should not intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution," the court noted [Para 18].
To balance procedural fairness, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within 12 days and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the delay leniently, given the prior pendency of the writ petition.

"Renewal Requests Cannot Circumvent Non-Renewal Clauses in Lease Agreements"

The court emphasized that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the lease's non-renewal clause and could not approbate and reprobate by seeking renewal later.
"The unequivocal terms of the lease agreement show it was for 10 years without an option for renewal. The mere pendency of a writ petition seeking lease extension does not entitle the petitioner to continue occupying the property," the court held [Para 6].
The court concluded that there were no legal grounds to interfere with the eviction order, as it was passed in accordance with the PP Act's provisions and did not involve any procedural irregularities.
"The eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act were conducted within the framework of law, and no procedural lapses were found. The Estate Officer's jurisdiction stands affirmed," the court stated [Para 20].

The writ petition (WPA 29578 of 2024) was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within 12 days, with a directive to consider the delay leniently.
The court also denied the petitioner’s plea for a stay of the judgment.
 

Date of Decision: January 21, 2025