After 65 Years, Bombay HC Upholds RBI Eviction Of 3 Firms From Amar Building, Citing Security Concerns And No Rent-Control Protection

The petitioners, three group companies, occupied premises on the fourth floor of Amar Building, which the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) acquired in 1947.

Consent terms entered in 1961 in earlier rent proceedings required the companies to surrender part of the premises and stated that RBI would not seek eviction on the bona fide-requirement ground under the Bombay Rent Act; the companies continued occupying the remaining premises.

RBI later issued termination notices and sought eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, relying on security reports from the Intelligence Bureau and Mumbai Police recommending removal of non-RBI occupants. The Estate Officer ordered eviction under Section 5(1) on 15 April 2013, and the City Civil Court dismissed the companies’ appeals on 23 January 2014.

The companies challenged those concurrent orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Section 4 of the Public Premises Act permits an Estate Officer who has information that a person is in unauthorised occupation to issue a show-cause notice; it does not require a prior written formation of satisfaction.

Under Section 2(g), occupation becomes unauthorised when the authority to occupy expires or is determined; for a monthly tenancy terminable under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, no reason for termination need be stated, subject to the required notice.

Relying on Jiwan Dass v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Court held that the statutory power to determine a tenancy under Section 106 cannot be narrowed by importing a requirement to prove reasonable grounds for termination.

The Court also applied the principle that strict rules of the Evidence Act do not govern quasi-judicial proceedings, although natural justice must be observed; logically probative hearsay may be considered in such proceedings (State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh).

Article 227 does not permit the High Court to re-appreciate evidence absent perversity or a palpable error.

The Court held that Section 4 required information of unauthorised occupation, not a separately recorded opinion, and found no foundational error in issuing the notice.

The reports’ age did not invalidate the proceedings: they concerned security across RBI buildings, and a further 2010 report again recommended removing non-RBI occupants from Amar Building.

The reports were disclosed to the petitioners, RBI’s witness was examined and cross-examined, and the petitioners had an opportunity to address the reports; the Court therefore found no breach of natural justice in relying on them without examining their authors.

In any event, it held that, once the tenancy was terminable under Section 106 and rent-control protection was unavailable, RBI was not required to prove a particular eviction ground. The security rationale was nonetheless supported by the record.

The concurrent findings disclosed no perversity or other basis for Article 227 intervention.

It held that the show-cause notice and reliance on the security reports were not invalid, and that RBI was not required to establish a specific ground for terminating the tenancy; in any event, the security concerns were adequately supported by the evidence.

There was no order as to costs. The interim protection was continued for four weeks after pronouncement of judgment.