Click the Play button to listen to article

The Bombay High Court has held that there is no prohibition on RBI to rely on confidential information for establishing the security perception. The Court observed that the affected party cannot question the correctness of the opinion of security agencies by seeking to cross examine the officers of security agencies.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing three writ petitions filed challenging orders upholding the petitioners' eviction from premises in Amar Building, Mumbai, under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

The premises had initially been occupied by one of the petitioners as a tenant in 1930, before the RBI acquired ownership of Amar Building in 1947. In 1961, the parties entered into consent terms under which the companies agreed to find alternate accommodation, while the RBI agreed not to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under the Bombay Rent Act. The companies, however, continued occupying the remaining premises without finding alternative accommodation.

In 2009, the RBI initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act, relying on security reports prepared by the Intelligence Bureau and the Mumbai Police, which recommended removal of non-RBI entities from Amar Building.

The petitioners argued that the learned Judge has grossly erred in dismissing the Appeals preferred by the Petitioners and confirming the eviction orders. They also contended that the RBI had failed to establish a genuine security threat and that the 1961 consent terms barred it from seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The RBI argued that no specific ground or bona fide requirement had to be established for eviction under the Public Premises Act.

The Court noted that lapse of time in acting on the security reports cannot benefit the petitioners. It observed:

“RBI decided to act on the two reports in the year 2009 and initiated process for eviction of the Petitioners. It cannot be contended that the delay on the part of the RBI in acting on the two security reports would enure to the benefit of the Petitioners in any manner.”

The Court also refuted the contention of the Petitioners that non-examination of the authors of the security reports was fatal to the case, emphasising that this is not a criminal trial to apply strict rules of evidence. It further observed that there is no prohibition on RBI or the estate officer to rely on confidential information received from the IB and Police only for establishing the security perception.

“When security concerns are highlighted by the security agencies, the public authority is justified in entertaining a threat perception and the affected party cannot question the correctness of the opinion of security agencies in quasi-judicial proceedings by seeking to cross examine the officers of security agencies,” the Court remarked.

The Court further distinguished between the recommendation in the report and the perception of threat, clarifying:

“Petitioners could only cross examine RBI's official to establish that the security reports do not make out any security threat… Recommendations made by the security agencies is one concept and perception of threat due to presence of an occupier in the public premises by the public authority is a different concept. There can be no cross examination on the former aspect while the cross examination can be conducted on the latter aspect.”

The Court further held that where there is no specific tenure and the occupant holds the premises under a monthly tenancy, no reason is required to be assigned for terminating it under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

“Once it is clear that there is no protection of Rent Act to the premises or to the tenancy, the same becomes simple monthly tenancy, terminable under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, without assigning any reason,” the Court observed.

Finding no perversity in the concurrent findings of the Estate Officer and the City Civil Court, the High Court dismissed all three writ petitions.

Case Title: Munjee Nathoobhoy & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India [Writ Petition No. 2271 of 2014] and Connected Matters.

Full View
Tags: