Suresh Narayan Kadam & Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.
Civil Law - Public Premises
Institutionalized Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism - Mediation - Decision rendered by the High Court which is under challenge states that efforts were made to have the disputes between the contesting parties settled - But it is clear that no institutional mechanism was invited to assist in the settlement process - Proceedings before Apex Court also indicate that several efforts were made to encourage the contesting parties to arrive at a settlement, and at one point of time the parties did reach an interim arrangement but that could not fructify into a final settlement only because of the absence of an intervention through an institutional mechanism - Appreciating this, the Apex Court has consistently encouraged the settlement of disputes through an institutionalized alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 - Public Premises - Banks Flats - Eviction order - With a view to redevelop the plot by demolishing the buildings purchased by the Bank, the Bank stopped allotting the flats from sometime in 1997 onwards - On or about 15th June, 2007 it floated a proposal for redevelopment of the plot by demolishing the buildings - The proposal for redevelopment necessitated the eviction of the employees from the flats occupied by them - Sometime in July2007 eviction notices were issued to the employees-allottees under the provisions of the Act,1971 - None of the employees have any right to retain the allotted premises, more particularly since the allotment was not a part of their condition of service which is quite clear from the Circulars dated 15th September, 1982 and 25th May, 1983 - That apart, no right based submission was made before the Court - That being the position, it is really difficult to appreciate the basis on which the employees are claiming an entitlement to continue in the allotted premises.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 - Public Premises - Eviction order - Challenge as to - Submission on behalf of appellants that the land was leased out by the MHADA to the Bank for the purposes of housing middle income group employees or lower income group employees - As a result of the redevelopment plan, the Bank was intending to demolish the buildings and to construct luxury apartments for their managerial level officers, contrary to the lease agreement with MHADA - Held that assuming this to be so, if there is a violation of the provisions of the lease deed between the MHADA and the Bank, it is really for them to settle their differences, if any - The employees do not come into the picture at all - This is not a public interest litigation where the rule relating to think it appropriate to direct them to pay any damages to the Bank for the use and occupation of the premises allotted nor do think it appropriate to permit the Bank to recover the damages awarded against the employee. standing can be relaxed - Find no merit in these petitions and therefore decline to grant special leave to appeal and dismiss these petitions - Since the employees have been residing in the flats for a considerable period of time, time given to vacate the premises allotted to them on or before 31st March, 2016 - Do not think it appropriate to direct them to pay any damages to the Bank for the use and occupation of the premises allotted nor do think it appropriate to permit the Bank to recover the damages awarded against the employee.
Topic(s)-Public Premises - Banks Flats - Eviction Allowed