The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that a court must provide reasons and an opportunity of hearing to both parties before condoning delay in appeals under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Orders passed without recording reasons or without hearing affected parties violate statutory mandate and principles of natural justice, and are liable to be set aside in revisional jurisdiction under Article 227. This decision upholds existing Supreme Court precedent, clarifies the procedural law applicable to public premises disputes, and binds subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CO/430/2025 of BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT KOLKATA Vs CITY VARIETY STORES |
| CNR | WBCHCA0057792025 |
| Date of Registration | 06-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents (incl. S.D. Bandi, Balwant Singh, New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram) |
| Type of Law | Procedural—Public Premises Eviction, Limitation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that condonation of delay under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act must be exercised exceptionally and only with reasons recorded in writing. The court must hear both parties before allowing condonation, and any order passed without assigning reasons or without giving notice is void. The Limitation Act applies to proceedings under the 1971 Act. Applications for recalling orders must also observe natural justice and be considered under inherent powers if not expressly covered by statute. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner (Port Trust) terminated the respondent’s (City Variety Stores) license due to arrears and unauthorised subletting, obtained eviction, and initiated recovery. The respondent appealed late, seeking condonation of delay, which was granted by the trial court without notice or reasoned order. The Port Trust challenged this, raising issues of maintainability and statutory compliance. The High Court found the trial court order flawed for want of reasons and absence of hearing, and remitted the matter for a fresh decision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts with similar statutory framework; Supreme Court (for future clarifications) |
| Follows | S.D. Bandi v. Divl. Traffic Officer, KSRTC; Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh; New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram; Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata v. M/S Automobile Association of Eastern India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Courts must record reasons in writing while condoning delay in appeals under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
- Notice to and an opportunity of hearing for all affected parties before condonation of delay is mandatory.
- The Limitation Act applies to proceedings under the Act of 1971; claims otherwise time-barred cannot be enforced via Section 7 proceedings.
- In the absence of express statutory provision for recall, courts may entertain recall applications under inherent powers, observing principles of natural justice.
- Failure to follow statutory mandate and natural justice in speedy public premises eviction actions will vitiate court orders.
- Lawyers should object if adverse orders are made ex parte in such matters or without reasoned order, citing this judgment.
- Maintainability of appeals by non-proprietors or third parties will be scrutinised at the stage of admission and hearing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Obligation for Reasoned Order: The trial court condoned delay and admitted appeal without assigning reasons or hearing the petitioner. Supreme Court precedents mandate written, reasoned orders recording satisfaction for delay condonation in exceptional cases under Section 9 of the 1971 Act.
- Natural Justice Violated: The order was contrary to natural justice as the adverse party (Port Trust) was not given a right of audience before the condonation of delay.
- Application of Limitation Act: The Limitation Act applies to recovery under Section 7 of the 1971 Act, following Supreme Court decisions, notably New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram.
- Recall of Ex Parte Orders: Even in absence of a specific recall provision in the 1971 Act, such application can be considered under the court’s inherent powers, with natural justice preserved.
- Remand for Fresh Consideration: Given procedural illegality, the High Court set aside the orders and directed the trial court to re-hear the matter with both parties present, leaving questions of maintainability of the appeal open to the lower court.
- Supreme Court Guidance Reaffirmed: Liberal condonation is the exception, not the rule, especially in speedy eviction matters involving public premises, as repeatedly held by the Supreme Court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The appeal was not maintainable—filed not by the proprietor but by a third party.
- Application for condonation of delay was mala fide, with material suppression.
- Criteria for delay condonation under Section 9 of the 1971 Act were not met.
- The trial court did not assign reasons or grant a hearing before condoning delay.
- Cited Supreme Court authorities on the necessity of bona fide conduct and reasoned orders.
Respondent (Opposite Party)
- Challenged procedural propriety of the recall and revisional application.
- Pointed out inordinate 30-year delay by petitioner in recovery proceedings.
- Asserted right to appeal and to have reasons for delay condonation considered.
- Claimed the Port Trust refused settlement without valid legal basis.
- Argued that absence of statutory communication of final order vitiated limitation.
- Emphasized Supreme Court’s preference for liberal approach to condonation where substantial questions of law arise.
Factual Background
The Board of Trustees for the Port of Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata licensed premises to City Variety Stores, terminated the license in 1985 for non-payment of fees and unauthorized subletting, and secured eviction in 2018. The Port Trust then initiated recovery of accumulated damages (over ₹65 lakhs), and an ex parte order under Section 7 was passed in 2022. The respondent filed an appeal with an application to condone alleged delay, which the court admitted without notice or hearing the Port Trust. The Port Trust’s subsequent objection and application to recall were dismissed by the lower court, prompting the present revision.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 9, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: Governs appeal against orders and permits condonation of delay only in “exceptional cases”, for “reasons to be recorded in writing”. The standard is stricter than under the Limitation Act.
- Section 7, Act of 1971: Authorizes recovery of arrears/damages via special procedure; Supreme Court clarifies the Limitation Act applies; only legally recoverable arrears can be enforced.
- Limitation Act, 1963: Applies to recovery proceedings, per Supreme Court.
- Article 227, Constitution of India: High Court’s supervisory/revisional jurisdiction invoked to ensure compliance with due process and correction of jurisdictional errors.
- Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): In the absence of explicit recall provision in the Act, inherent powers and CPC principles were invoked.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are documented in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Recognized and clarified that recall applications may be considered in public premises proceedings under inherent powers even where the statute is silent.
- Strict requirement reiterated that courts must record reasons for condonation under the Act.
- Affirmed necessity for hearing both parties before passing orders affecting legal rights in condonation/appeal proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and affirms binding Supreme Court precedent on reasons for delay condonation and application of the Limitation Act in public premises matters.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Strict observation of limitation and delay condonation under the Act of 1971 emphasized.