Meaning of government premises

CA NO. 2201 OF  2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 36170 of 2014) titled WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD  & ORS. VERSUS M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. & ORS March 18, 2020 held

26. The   point   for   consideration   before   us   is   when   neither   a building nor a part of the building nor a hut nor a part of the hut nor a seat in a room is let out to a tenant but only bare land is let out to a tenant, can such tenancy be regarded as relating to a “Government premises” to attract the provisions of the Act.   The expression  “includes”  is  used  in  two  places  of  the   definition  of “premises” in Section 2(c) and the expression “includes” which was used for the second time in the said definition without any doubt was included to expand the ambit of “Government premises” so as to   attract   the   provisions   of   the   said   Act.     The   expression “appurtenant to it” carries special significance.  We cannot read the definition of “premises” bereft of the expression “appurtenant to it”. The expression “appurtenant” in the context means ‘relating to’, usually   enjoyed’,   ‘occupied   with’   or   ‘adjoining’.     Therefore,   if   a garden, ground, or an ou-t­house is let out along with building or hut or a seat in a room, such a garden, ground or an out­-house becomes part of the “premises”. However, bare land has not been independently included in the definition of “premises”. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that if bare land is let out by the government and/or the government undertaking to its tenant, the incidence of such tenancy cannot be governed by the provisions of the Act and as such a tenant cannot be evicted by taking aid of the provisions of the Ac

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Registered Document is presumed to be valid unless otherwise proved

 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/29674/29674_2019_34_1501_24672_Judgement_16-Nov-2020.pdf Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. 8 (2006) 5 SCC 353 The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below: “27.  There   is   a   presumption   that   a   registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of  proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.  In Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 582 "It has b...
Read more

Whether is was any reason explained to pass the order by authority

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf The matter was reminded back with an opportunity to the State to provide reasons for the administrative decision taken to rescind the policy  The authority has choice to explained the reasons or pass the fresh order on the fresh cause of action with explained reasons. There cannot be post hoc justification of the action. The post hoc justification doctrine merely requires that courts assess agency action based on the official explanations of the agency decision makers, and not based on after-the-fact explanations advanced by agency lawyers during litigation. As the D. C. Circuit has explained, the post hoc justification doctrine “is not a time barrier which freezes an agency’s exercise of its judgment after an initial decision has been made and bars it from further articulation of its reasoning. It is a rule directed at reviewing courts which forbids judges to uphold agency action on the basis of rationales offered by anyo...
Read more

Articles

Image
As  Home News Columns Dealstreet Interviews Apprentice Lawyer Viewpoint Legal Jobs Vikram Hegde, Shantanu Lakhotia COLUMNS Transfer Petitions and video conferencing: Time for another look at Santhini? Unless the courts contemplate complete stoppage of work till free travel without risk of being infected becomes possible, video conference hearings are inevitable. Vikram Hegde   &  Shantanu Lakhotia Jul 1, 2020, 10:05 AM IST As lawyers, we are already grappling with what we may call  video conference vagaries  since the beginning of the lockdown. At the same time, we are all aware that sooner rather than later, litigants will also have to start appearing in courts by video conference. The story of the interface of a litigant with the court being mediated by a video link starts with the amendment of Section 167(2)(b) of the CrPC, which provides, among other things, that a magistrate may extend the detention of an accused in judicial custody. Such extension...
Read more