BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA AND ORS versus APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS. on 21 February 2019

[2019] 4 S.C.R. 829

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA AND ORS.

APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 3910 of 2013)

FEBRUARY 21, 2019

[A. K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND

S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 – ss.2(g), 5, 5A and 6 – Land allotted to one M/s. ShalimarTar Products Ltd. (STPL) – STPL stopped paying rent to the PortTrust – Lease in favour of STPL expired – STPL failed to deliverpossession of the premises – Port Trust initiated eviction proceedingsu/PP Act – Estate Officer passed eviction order – Authorized officerappointed for recovery of the possession of the premises, tookpossession of the premises and the containers stacked thereon –Notice u/s.6(1) issued by the Estate Officer to remove or cause tobe removed or disposed of by public auction, any property remainingon the premises – In the said proceedings, the respondent no.6appeared and sought permission to remove the huge number ofcontainers from the premises – Rejected – Respondent filed writpetition, inter alia, seeking permission to remove the containers lyingon the premises – Single Judge while holding that there are differentviews taken by two different Division Benches of the Calcutta HighCourt in Canoro Resources and Indian Rayon on the scope and ambitof s.59 of the 1963 Act, referred the matter to the Chief Justice forconstitution of larger Bench– Full Bench held that ss.59, 61 of the1963 Act cannot be read into proceedings u/PP Act and directedplacing of the writ petition before Single Judge – On appeal, held:PP Act provides for eviction of occupants from public premises andfor certain incidental matters – Act was enacted to provide for aspeedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants ofthe public premises as it became impossible for government to takeexpeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorised occupationof public premises – Any person in occupation of the public premiseswithout authority for such occupation is an unauthorized occupant

829

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A– Expression ‘spread on any public premises’, contained ins.5A(1)(b) also means ‘lying on any premises’– s.5A(3) authorizesthe Estate Officer to remove any goods lying on any public premisesafter an order of eviction u/s.5 – It is also not necessary that thereshould be a privity of contract between the Port Trust and the thirdparty to whom such goods belong for disposing of the property byBthe Estate Officer u/s.6 – s.6 applies, inter alia, to the persons whokeep their goods in the public premises whether they are tenants/licensees, sub-tenants or any other parties –Estate Officer, u/s.6 isentitled to sell the goods even of a stranger, found in/on the premisesunder unauthorized occupation – Full Bench justified in holdingCthat there is no conflict between the two judgments of Division Benchin Canoro Resources and Indian Rayon – Single Judge of the HighCourt to decide the writ petition expeditiously – Major Port TrustsAct, 1963 – ss.59 and 61.

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, D1971 – s.6 – Purpose of – Discussed.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 It is not in dispute that the premises is a “publicpremises” as defined under the Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 Act. The PP Act providesEfor eviction of occupants from public premises and for certainincidental matters. This Act was enacted to provide for a speedymachinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants of the publicpremises. It is clear from the statement of object and reasons ofthe PP Act that it has become impossible for government to takeFexpeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorisedoccupation of public premises and recovery of rent or damagesfor such unauthorised occupation. It is, therefore, consideredimperative to restore a speedy machinery for the eviction ofpersons who are in unauthorised occupation. [Paras 15, 16][837-G-H; 838-E]G

1.2 Section 2(g) defines the expression ‘unauthorisedoccupation’ in relation to public premises. Section 5 lays downthe procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants. Section5A was inserted by Act 61 of 1980, which has come into forcewith effect from 20.12.1980. This Section provides for removal H

of unauthorized construction on or against or in front of any publicpremises. Section 6 provides for disposal of the property left onthe public premises by unauthorized occupants. It is clear fromsub-sections (1A) and (2) of Section 6 that any person inoccupation of the public premises without authority for suchoccupation is an unauthorized occupant. The expression ‘spreadon any public premises’, contained in sub-section (1)(b) of Section5A in the context also means ‘lying on any premises’. Sub-section(3) of Section 5A authorizes the Estate Officer to remove anygoods lying on any public premises after an order of eviction hasbeen made under Section 5 of the Act. It is immaterial whetherthe said goods belong to the erstwhile tenant/licensee or to anyother party. Sub-section (1A) of Section 6 authorises the EstateOfficer to dispose of such goods/materials, etc. after givingfourteen days’ notice to the persons owning such goods and otherprocedure prescribed therein. It is not necessary that the personsowning the goods lying on the premises should be erstwhiletenants/licensees. It is also not necessary that there should be aprivity of contract between the Port Trust and the third party towhom such goods and materials belong for disposing of theproperty by the Estate Officer under Section 6. [Paras 17-20][837-G; 838-D-E]

1.3 Section 6 of the PP Act has been enacted with obviouspurpose of enabling statutory authorities to take all consequentialsteps after receiving possession of public premises and forrecovery of dues, etc. The said provision ought not to beinterpreted in a way which defeats the very purpose of itsenactment. Section 6 of the PP Act must be read independent of,and not dependant on, Sections 59 and 61 of the MPT Act. Section6 of the PP Act applies, inter alia, to the persons who keep theirgoods in the public premises whether they are tenants/licensees,sub-tenants or any other parties. The Estate Officer, under Section6 of the PP Act, is entitled to sell the goods even of a stranger,found in/on the premises under unauthorized occupation. TheFull Bench of the High Court had already directed the writ petitionto be placed before the learned Single Judge for decision onmerits. The Single Judge of the High Court is requested to decidethe writ petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of six A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Amonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order[Paras 24,25] [841-G-H; 842-A-C]

The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata v. CanoroResources Ltd. & Ors.2008 (1) CHN 941;Board ofTrustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Indian Rayon Corpn.BLtd. & Ors. 1987 (28) ELT 334 (Cal.);Board ofTrustees of the Port of Bombay and Ors. v. SriyaneshKnitters(1999) 7 SCC 359 : [1999] 3 SCR 1238 –referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3910Dof 2013.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2009 of the High Courtat Calcutta in W.P. (C) No. 1116 of 2008

With

ECivil Appeal Nos. 3912, 3911 of 2013.

Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv., A. V. Rangam, Buddy A. Ranganadhan,Ms. Stuti Krishn, Ms. Mishika Bajpai, Chira Ranjan Addy,A. Lakshminarayanan, Shree Pal Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Advs. for the appearing parties.

FThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. These appeals, arising out of areference to the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, raise an importantquestion on the meaning, interpretation and applicability of Section 6 ofthe Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971G(for short ‘the PP Act’). The issue revolves around the right of theappellants (hereinafter referred to as the “Port Trust”) to seize and disposeof goods and materials lying on the “public premises” which goods maynot necessarily belong to the erstwhile tenant/licensee of such “publicpremises” under the PP Act.

H

2. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of theseappeals are as under:

3. A piece of land altogether measuring 17238.15 sq. mtr. situatedat Transport Depot Road, P.S. Taratola, Kolkata, (for short ‘the premises’)was allotted to M/s. Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred toas ‘the STPL’) by way of Deed of Assignment dated 06.12.1963. TheSTPL stopped the payment of rent to the Port Trust since 1973. Thelease in respect of the premises granted in favour of the STPL expiredby afflux of time in the year 1981. Therefore, the Port Trust issued anotice dated 31.08.2000 to the STPL to quit the premises and deliver itspossession. As the STPL failed to deliver back possession of thepremises, the Port Trust initiated the proceedings for eviction, as well asfor recovery of arrears of rent and dues on account of unauthorizedoccupation before the Estate Officer under the provisions of the PPAct.

4. The Estate Officer issued a notice dated 24.01.2006 underSections 4 and 7 of the PP Act to the STPL. All the concerned personsin occupation of the premises were also notified by affixing the aforesaidnotices on the outer wall of the premises. The STPL duly appearedbefore the Estate Officer.

5. The Estate Officer, upon hearing the Port Trust and the STPL,passed an order of eviction on 09.07.2007, and also directed the STPLto pay damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the premisesamounting to Rs.2,46,64,411/-, calculated upto 30.06.2005, excluding theinterest thereon. The Port Trust applied to the Estate Officer for executionof the said order and appointment of an authorized officer for recoveryof the possession of the premises under the provisions of the PP Act.On 19.02.2008, the Estate Officer passed an order appointing Smt.Subarna Thakur, Officer-in-Charge (Estate) of the Port Trust as anauthorized officer for recovery of possession in terms of the order ofeviction dated 09.07.2007.

6. The authorized officer took possession of the premises and thecontainers stacked thereon. Immediately upon eviction and takingpossession, the Port Trust deployed security guards for protection of thepremises. Several containers remained at the premises at the time oftaking possession.

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A7. After taking possession, the authorized officer wrote a letterdated 10.03.2008 informing the Estate Officer that the land has beenrecovered from the STPL on 08.03.2008 along with the containers stackedon the premises. The Estate Officer passed an order directing theauthorized officer to take inventory of the materials/articles/goods lyingon the premises in the presence of a competent officer of the Port TrustBand also directed the issue of notice under Section 6 of the PP Act fordisposal of the properties left by the unauthorized occupant and also topublish a copy of the said notice in the newspaper as per the provisionsof the PP Act and the rules made thereunder for disposal of the propertylying on the premises. In the said proceedings, the respondent No.6Cappeared on 10.03.2008 and filed an application seeking permission toremove the huge number of containers from the premises. The EstateOfficer rejected the application, which has not been questioned by thesixth respondent.

8. In terms of the aforesaid order, a notice under sub-section (1)Dof Section 6 of the PP Act was issued by the Estate Officer to removeor cause to be removed or disposed of by public auction any propertyremaining on the premises. A copy of the said notice was also issuedthrough a local daily newspaper. The respondents/writ petitioners hereinpreferred a writ petition, inter alia, seeking permission to remove thecontainers lying on the premises by contending that they could not beErestrained from removing the containers till realization of dues from theSTPL. It was further contended that the Port Trust had wrongly withheldthe containers belonging to them and that they had no privity of contractwith the Port Trust and, therefore, not liable to pay any rent to the PortTrust.F

9. The Port Trust opposed the writ petition. The learned SingleJudge of the Calcutta High Court, while holding that there are differentviews taken by two different Division Benches of the Calcutta HighCourt on the scope and ambit of Section 59 of the Major Port TrustsAct, 1963, (for short ‘the MPT Act’), referred the matter to the ChiefGJustice for constitution of a larger Bench to determine the followingquestion:

“Whether Section 59 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, readwith Sections 5 and 6 of the 1971 Act confers on KPT a right oflien on, or the right to detain, seize and/or sell the goods of third H

parties, lying on the public premises, for realization of arrears ofrent due from tenants, irrespective of whether the owner of thosegoods had any privity of contract with KPT”.

10. The Full Bench of the High Court held that the observationsof the Division Bench in The Board of Trustees for the Port ofKolkata v. Canoro Resources Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2008 (1) CHN941, (for short ‘Canoro Resources’) on Sections 59 and 61 of theMPT Act were at best obiter dicta. While holding so, the Full Benchopined that there was no conflict between the judgments of the DivisionBench in Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Indian RayonCorpn. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1987 (28) ELT 334 (Cal.), (for short‘Indian Rayon’) and Canoro Resources. The observations of theFull Bench are as under:

“With due respect to the observation of the Division Bench, weare not in agreement with the same. In our opinion, Sections 59and 61 of MPTA cannot be read into proceedings under PPA,1971. There can be no general lien under Section 59 of MPTAwhich would cover the goods of a party having no privity ofcontract with KPT, which are sought to be sold in executionproceeding under PPA, 1971. The Division Bench in fact noticesthat KPT had in execution obtained possession of the land fromits tenant, and seized some timbers and casing pipes which werelying on the lease hold lands at the time of taking delivery ofpossession. The owner had imported the goods. They were kepton open ground for the purpose of sending the same to furtherdestination. Clearly, therefore, KPT had no claim against thegoods on account of rates and rents for services rendered underSection 42 of the MPTA. In such circumstances, the provisionsof Section 59 and 61 of MPTA were not at all relevant for decidingthe controversy between the parties. The issue decided by theDivision Bench did not arise on the pleadings. Nor was the pointargued by any of the parties. The three points argued by theparties, 1) that KPT should have been made a party, 2) underSection 6 of the PPA, 1971 KPT was entitled to sell the goods,even of a stranger, found in/on premises under unauthorizedoccupation and 3) that alternative remedy was available.Therefore, in our opinion, findings in paragraph 18 are at best only A

BC

D

EF

G

Aobiter dicta. In our opinion, the first part of para 18 of the judgmentdoes not deal with the issue raised before the Court. Mr. AnindyaMitra had not even raised the issue about the power of KPTunder Sections 59 or 61. No grievance had also been made whileMr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned counsel for the petitionerssubmitted that the KPT had wrongly invoked Sections 59 and 61Bof MPTA. The whole issue was limited only to the powers ofKPT under the PPA, 1971. In our opinion, it was a territorytravelled into by the Division Bench, without being invited therein,either in the pleadings or the submissions of the learned counsel.These observations, therefore, cannot be treated as a precedentCon interpretation of Sections 59 and 61 of MPTA. In our opinion,the issue with regard to the ambit of Section 59 and 61 has beencorrectly decided by the Division Bench in Indian RayonCorporation Ltd. (supra). This judgment is in consonance withthe law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s. SriyaneshKnitters (supra).

A

D

For the reasons stated above, we are unable to accept thesubmission of Mr. Anindya Mitra that there is no conflict betweenthe earlier. Division Bench Judgment in Indian RayonCorporation Ltd. (supra) and the later Division Bench judgmentin Canoro Resources Ltd. (supra).The view taken in firstpart of paragraph 18 of the judgment in Canoro Resources Ltd.(supra) is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Courtand therefore, cannot be said to be good law.”

E

11. After answering the reference as above, the Full Benchdirected placing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge forFdecision on merits. The Port Trust has challenged the legality andcorrectness of the aforesaid judgment of Full Bench in these appeals.

12. Appearing for the appellants, Shri Parag P. Tripathi, learnedsenior counsel, submits that the premises in question is a “public premises”as defined under the PP Act. There is no bar for the Port Trust toGinitiate action for eviction of unauthorized occupant from the premisesor to dispose of goods and materials lying in public premises which maynot necessarily belonging to the erstwhile tenant/licensee of the saidpremises. The Port Trust has initiated action for the eviction of theunauthorized occupant under the PP Act. The Port Trust has not initiated H

H

any action under the MPT Act. Section 6 of the PP Act must be readand interpreted on its own. It is not dependent upon Sections 59 and 61of the MPT Act. It is argued that the judgment of the Division Bench ofthe High Court in Indian Rayon has no application to the facts of thepresent case. It is unnecessary for the Court to conjointly read Sections59 and 61 of the MPT Act and Sections 5 and 6 of the PP Act for thepurpose of evicting an unauthorized occupant. It is further argued thatthe Full Bench ought to have held that the proceedings initiated by thePort Trust also covers the respondents/writ petitioners and that they arebound by the order of the Estate Officer passed under Sections 5 and 6of the PP Act.

13. On the other hand, Shri Chira Ranjan Addy, learned counselappearing for the respondents, submits that there is no privity of contractbetween the Port Trust and the respondents/writ petitioners and that thePort Trust does not acquire any right in respect of the goods of the thirdparties. Hence, the observations made in Canoro Resources cannotbe justified. The respondents/writ petitioners being third parties, theirgoods can never be the subject-matter of lien having regard to the expresslanguage contained in Section 61 of the MPT Act. It is further arguedthat the writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge of theHigh Court and that all contentions in relation to the application Section6 of the PP Act can be considered by the High Court. The Full Benchhas considered all the aspects of the case and has clarified the legalposition. This Court in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombayand Ors. v. Sriyanesh Knitters, (1999) 7 SCC 359, has consideredthe scope of different provisions of the MPT Act and has held that theseprovisions do not authorize the Port Trust to have general lien over goodsbelonging to the writ petitioners.

14. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

15. It is not in dispute that the premises is a “public premises” asdefined under the PP Act. The Port Trust initiated action for eviction ofthe STPL, an unauthorized occupant of the premises under the provisionsof the PP Act. The STPL has contested the proceedings before theEstate Officer. On 09.07.2007, Estate Officer passed an order of evictionand also directed the STPL to pay the damages for unauthorized use A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Aand occupation of the premises. Notice was issued under Section 5(1)of the PP Act for evicting the STPL. It is clear from the records that allthe persons concerned with the premises were also notified in accordancewith law. An order was passed on 19.02.2008 appointing an authorizedofficer for recovery of possession in terms of the aforesaid order ofeviction. The authorized officer took possession of the premises andBthe containers lying on the premises. The authorized officer was permittedto take inventory of the materials/articles goods lying on the premisesand was also directed to issue notice under Section 6 of the PP Act fordisposal of the properties left by the unauthorized occupant. A noticewas also published under Section 6(1) of the Act in the local newspaperCto remove or cause to be removed or dispose of by public auction anyproperty remaining within the premises. At this stage, the respondents/writ petitioners have filed the writ petition before the High Court for adirection to the Port Trust to permit them to remove the containersbelonging to them which were lying on the premises.

D16. The PP Act provides for eviction of occupants from publicpremises and for certain incidental matters. This Act was enacted toprovide for a speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupantsof the public premises. It is clear from the statement of object and reasonsof the PP Act that it has become impossible for government to take

expeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorised occupation ofEpublic premises and recovery of rent or damages for such unauthorisedoccupation. It is, therefore, considered imperative to restore a speedymachinery for the eviction of persons who are in unauthorised occupation.

17. Section 2(g) defines the expression ‘unauthorised occupation’in relation to public premises as under:-F

(g) “unauthorized occupation”, in relation to any public premises,means the occupation by any person of the public premises withoutauthority for such occupation, and includes the continuance inoccupation by any person of the public premises after the authority(whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) underGwhich he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or hasbeen determined for any reason whatsoever”.

18. Section 5 lays down the procedure for eviction of unauthorizedoccupants. Section 5A was inserted by Act 61 of 1980, which has comeinto force with effect from 20.12.1980. This Section provides for removalH

of unauthorized construction on or against or in front of any publicpremises. The relevant provisions for the purpose of this case are sub-section (1)(b) and sub-section (3) of Section 5A, which are as under:- “5A.Power to remove unauthorized constructions, etc.-(1)No person shall- (a) …….

(b) display or spread any goods.

(c) …….

on, or against, or in front of, any public premises except inaccordance with the authority (whether by way of grant or anyother mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupysuch premises.

(2) …….

(3) Where any movable structure or fixture has been erected,placed or raised, or any goods have been displayed or spread, orany cattle or other animal has been brought or kept, on any publicpremises, in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) byany person, the estate officer may, by order, remove or cause tobe removed without notice, such structure, fixture, goods, cattleor other animal, as the case may be, from the public premises andrecover the cost of such removal from such person as an arrearof land revenue.”

19. Section 6 provides for disposal of the property left on thepublic premises by unauthorized occupants. The relevant sub-Sectionsfor the purpose of this case are sub-sections (1A) and (2) of Section 6,which are as under:- “6.Disposal of property left on public premises byunauthorized occupants.-

(1) …..

(1A) Where any goods, materials, cattle or other animal havebeen removed from any public premises under section 5A, theestate officer may, after giving fourteen days’ notice to the personsowing such goods, materials, cattle or other animal and afterpublishing the notice in at least one newspaper having circulation A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain the locality, dispose of, by public auction, such goods, materials,cattle or other animal.

(1B) …..

(2) Where any property is sold under sub-section (1), the saleproceeds thereof shall, after deducting the expenses of the saleBand the amount, if any, due to the Central Government or the[statutory authority] on account of arrears of rent or damages orcosts, be paid to such person or persons as may appears to theestate officer to be entitled to the same:

Provided that where the estate officer is unable to decide as toCthe person or persons to whom the balance of the amount is payableor as to the apportionment of the same, he may refer such disputeto the civil court of competent jurisdiction and the decision of thecourt thereon shall be final”.

20. It is clear from the above provisions that any person inDoccupation of the public premises without authority for such occupationis an unauthorized occupant. The expression ‘spread on any publicpremises’, contained in sub-section (1)(b) of Section 5A in the contextalso means ‘lying on any premises’. Sub-section (3) of Section 5Aauthorizes the Estate Officer to remove any goods lying on any publicEpremises after an order of eviction has been made under Section 5 ofthe Act. It is immaterial whether the said goods belong to the erstwhiletenant/licensee or to any other party. Sub-section (1A) of Section 6authorises the Estate Officer to dispose of such goods/materials, etc.after giving fourteen days’ notice to the persons owning such goods andother procedure prescribed therein. It is not necessary that the personsFowning the goods lying on the premises should be erstwhile tenants/licensees. It is also not necessary that there should be a privity of contractbetween the Port Trust and the third party to whom such goods andmaterials belong for disposing of the property by the Estate Officer underSection 6.G21. In Indian Rayon, the Division Bench was dealing exclusivelywith lien under the MPT Act. It has not considered eviction ofunauthorized tenants under Section 6 of the PP Act. This judgment is inconformity with the judgment of this Court in M/s. Sriyanesh Knitters(supra).H

22. In Canoro Resources the Division Bench was consideringthe matter where an eviction order had been passed by the Estate Officerunder the PP Act. In the execution of the said order, the Estate Officerobtained possession of the land from the tenant and seized the timberand casing pipes which were lying on the leasehold land. The owner ofthese goods, challenged the order of the Estate Officer in a writ petitionby contending that there was no privity of contract between him and thePort Trust. In this background, the Division Bench held that a conjointreading of Sections 59 and 61 of the MPT Act vis-a-vis Sections 5 and6 of the PP Act make it clear that if any goods are found to be lying onthe land of the Port Trust, and for such land any rent is due or payable,the Port Trust has not only the lien over the goods, but also the right tosell those goods so as to appropriate the sale proceedings towards therental dues.

23. As noticed above, the proceeding initiated in CanoroResources was under the PP Act. Therefore, it was not necessary forthe Division Bench to read Sections 59 and 61 of the MPT Act into theproceeding initiated under the PP Act. The Full Bench, in our view, wasjustified in holding that those observations were, at best, obiter dicta.The Full Bench was also justified in holding that there is no conflictbetween the two judgments of the Division Bench in Indian Rayon andCanoro Resources.

24. In the instant case, the contention urged on behalf of the PortTrust is that even if the goods belonging to the third parties are foundlying on the premises after an order of eviction passed under Section 5,it was entitled to sell the goods and deduct from the sale proceeds anyamount due to the Port Trust on account of arrears of rent or damages,etc and that the balance of the sale proceeds shall be paid to such personor persons, as may appear to the Estate Officer, to be entitled for thesame. We are in complete agreement with this submission made onbehalf of the Port Trust. We are of the view that Section 6 of the PPAct has been enacted with obvious purpose of enabling statutoryauthorities to take all consequential steps after receiving possession ofpublic premises and for recovery of dues, etc. The said provision oughtnot to be interpreted in a way which defeats the very purpose of itsenactment. Section 6 of the PP Act must be read independent of, andnot dependant on, Sections 59 and 61 of the MPT Act. As noticed A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aabove, Section 6 of the PP Act applies, inter alia, to the persons whokeep their goods in the public premises whether they are tenants/licensees,sub-tenants or any other parties. The Estate Officer, under Section 6 ofthe PP Act, is entitled to sell the goods even of a stranger, found in/onthe premises under unauthorized occupation.

25. The Full Bench of the High Court had already directed thewrit petition to be placed before the learned Single Judge for decision onmerits. We request the learned Single Judge of the High Court to decidethe writ petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of six monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, keeping in mind theobservations made in this Judgment.

B

C

26. The Civil Appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Therewill be no order as to costs.

D

Divya Pandey

Appeals disposed of.

E

F

G

H