BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA AND ORSversusAPL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

                           [2019] 4 S.C.R. 829                            829


    BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA                             A
                     AND ORS.
                        v.
               APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 3910 of 2013)                        B
                        FEBRUARY 21, 2019
            [A. K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND
                   S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
       Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
                                                                          C
1971 – ss.2(g), 5, 5A and 6 – Land allotted to one M/s. Shalimar
Tar Products Ltd. (STPL) – STPL stopped paying rent to the Port
Trust – Lease in favour of STPL expired – STPL failed to deliver
possession of the premises – Port Trust initiated eviction proceedings
u/PP Act – Estate Officer passed eviction order – Authorized officer
appointed for recovery of the possession of the premises, took            D
possession of the premises and the containers stacked thereon –
Notice u/s.6(1) issued by the Estate Officer to remove or cause to
be removed or disposed of by public auction, any property remaining
on the premises – In the said proceedings, the respondent no.6
appeared and sought permission to remove the huge number of
                                                                          E
containers from the premises – Rejected – Respondent filed writ
petition, inter alia, seeking permission to remove the containers lying
on the premises – Single Judge while holding that there are different
views taken by two different Division Benches of the Calcutta High
Court in Canoro Resources and Indian Rayon on the scope and ambit
of s.59 of the 1963 Act, referred the matter to the Chief Justice for     F
constitution of larger Bench– Full Bench held that ss.59, 61 of the
1963 Act cannot be read into proceedings u/PP Act and directed
placing of the writ petition before Single Judge – On appeal, held:
PP Act provides for eviction of occupants from public premises and
for certain incidental matters – Act was enacted to provide for a
                                                                          G
speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants of
the public premises as it became impossible for government to take
expeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorised occupation
of public premises – Any person in occupation of the public premises
without authority for such occupation is an unauthorized occupant
                                                                          H
                                 829
830            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     – Expression ‘spread on any public premises’, contained in
      s.5A(1)(b) also means ‘lying on any premises’– s.5A(3) authorizes
      the Estate Officer to remove any goods lying on any public premises
      after an order of eviction u/s.5 – It is also not necessary that there
      should be a privity of contract between the Port Trust and the third
      party to whom such goods belong for disposing of the property by
B
      the Estate Officer u/s.6 – s.6 applies, inter alia, to the persons who
      keep their goods in the public premises whether they are tenants/
      licensees, sub-tenants or any other parties –Estate Officer, u/s.6 is
      entitled to sell the goods even of a stranger, found in/on the premises
      under unauthorized occupation – Full Bench justified in holding
C     that there is no conflict between the two judgments of Division Bench
      in Canoro Resources and Indian Rayon – Single Judge of the High
      Court to decide the writ petition expeditiously – Major Port Trusts
      Act, 1963 – ss.59 and 61.
           Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
D     1971 – s.6 – Purpose of – Discussed.
            Disposing of the appeals, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 It is not in dispute that the premises is a “public
      premises” as defined under the Public Premises (Eviction of
      Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 Act. The PP Act provides
E     for eviction of occupants from public premises and for certain
      incidental matters. This Act was enacted to provide for a speedy
      machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants of the public
      premises. It is clear from the statement of object and reasons of
      the PP Act that it has become impossible for government to take
F     expeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorised
      occupation of public premises and recovery of rent or damages
      for such unauthorised occupation. It is, therefore, considered
      imperative to restore a speedy machinery for the eviction of
      persons who are in unauthorised occupation. [Paras 15, 16]
      [837-G-H; 838-E]
G
            1.2 Section 2(g) defines the expression ‘unauthorised
      occupation’ in relation to public premises. Section 5 lays down
      the procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants. Section
      5A was inserted by Act 61 of 1980, which has come into force
      with effect from 20.12.1980. This Section provides for removal
H
   BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA v..                       831
               APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD..

of unauthorized construction on or against or in front of any public   A
premises. Section 6 provides for disposal of the property left on
the public premises by unauthorized occupants. It is clear from
sub-sections (1A) and (2) of Section 6 that any person in
occupation of the public premises without authority for such
occupation is an unauthorized occupant. The expression ‘spread
                                                                       B
on any public premises’, contained in sub-section (1)(b) of Section
5A in the context also means ‘lying on any premises’. Sub-section
(3) of Section 5A authorizes the Estate Officer to remove any
goods lying on any public premises after an order of eviction has
been made under Section 5 of the Act. It is immaterial whether
the said goods belong to the erstwhile tenant/licensee or to any       C
other party. Sub-section (1A) of Section 6 authorises the Estate
Officer to dispose of such goods/materials, etc. after giving
fourteen days’ notice to the persons owning such goods and other
procedure prescribed therein. It is not necessary that the persons
owning the goods lying on the premises should be erstwhile
                                                                       D
tenants/licensees. It is also not necessary that there should be a
privity of contract between the Port Trust and the third party to
whom such goods and materials belong for disposing of the
property by the Estate Officer under Section 6. [Paras 17-20]
[837-G; 838-D-E]
      1.3 Section 6 of the PP Act has been enacted with obvious        E
purpose of enabling statutory authorities to take all consequential
steps after receiving possession of public premises and for
recovery of dues, etc. The said provision ought not to be
interpreted in a way which defeats the very purpose of its
enactment. Section 6 of the PP Act must be read independent of,        F
and not dependant on, Sections 59 and 61 of the MPT Act. Section
6 of the PP Act applies, inter alia, to the persons who keep their
goods in the public premises whether they are tenants/licensees,
sub-tenants or any other parties. The Estate Officer, under Section
6 of the PP Act, is entitled to sell the goods even of a stranger,
found in/on the premises under unauthorized occupation. The            G
Full Bench of the High Court had already directed the writ petition
to be placed before the learned Single Judge for decision on
merits. The Single Judge of the High Court is requested to decide
the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of six
                                                                       H
832             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order [Paras 24,
      25] [841-G-H; 842-A-C]
            The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata v. Canoro
            Resources Ltd. & Ors. 2008 (1) CHN 941; Board of
            Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Indian Rayon Corpn.
B           Ltd. & Ors. 1987 (28) ELT 334 (Cal.); Board of
            Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Ors. v. Sriyanesh
            Knitters (1999) 7 SCC 359 : [1999] 3 SCR 1238 –
            referred to.
                                Case Law Reference
C     2008 (1) CHN 941                   referred to               Para 10
      1987 (28) ELT 334 (Cal.)           referred to               Para 10
      [1999] 3 SCR 1238                  referred to               Para 13
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3910
D     of 2013.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2009 of the High Court
      at Calcutta in W.P. (C) No. 1116 of 2008
                                         With
E           Civil Appeal Nos. 3912, 3911 of 2013.
            Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv., A. V. Rangam, Buddy A. Ranganadhan,
      Ms. Stuti Krishn, Ms. Mishika Bajpai, Chira Ranjan Addy,
      A. Lakshminarayanan, Shree Pal Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
      Advs. for the appearing parties.
F           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. These appeals, arising out of a
      reference to the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, raise an important
      question on the meaning, interpretation and applicability of Section 6 of
      the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
G     (for short ‘the PP Act’). The issue revolves around the right of the
      appellants (hereinafter referred to as the “Port Trust”) to seize and dispose
      of goods and materials lying on the “public premises” which goods may
      not necessarily belong to the erstwhile tenant/licensee of such “public
      premises” under the PP Act.
H
   BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA v..                               833
      APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD..[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

      2. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of these           A
appeals are as under:
       3. A piece of land altogether measuring 17238.15 sq. mtr. situated
at Transport Depot Road, P.S. Taratola, Kolkata, (for short ‘the premises’)
was allotted to M/s. Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the STPL’) by way of Deed of Assignment dated 06.12.1963. The              B
STPL stopped the payment of rent to the Port Trust since 1973. The
lease in respect of the premises granted in favour of the STPL expired
by afflux of time in the year 1981. Therefore, the Port Trust issued a
notice dated 31.08.2000 to the STPL to quit the premises and deliver its
possession. As the STPL failed to deliver back possession of the
premises, the Port Trust initiated the proceedings for eviction, as well as    C
for recovery of arrears of rent and dues on account of unauthorized
occupation before the Estate Officer under the provisions of the PP
Act.
       4. The Estate Officer issued a notice dated 24.01.2006 under
Sections 4 and 7 of the PP Act to the STPL. All the concerned persons          D
in occupation of the premises were also notified by affixing the aforesaid
notices on the outer wall of the premises. The STPL duly appeared
before the Estate Officer.
       5. The Estate Officer, upon hearing the Port Trust and the STPL,
passed an order of eviction on 09.07.2007, and also directed the STPL          E
to pay damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises
amounting to Rs.2,46,64,411/-, calculated upto 30.06.2005, excluding the
interest thereon. The Port Trust applied to the Estate Officer for execution
of the said order and appointment of an authorized officer for recovery
of the possession of the premises under the provisions of the PP Act.          F
On 19.02.2008, the Estate Officer passed an order appointing Smt.
Subarna Thakur, Officer-in-Charge (Estate) of the Port Trust as an
authorized officer for recovery of possession in terms of the order of
eviction dated 09.07.2007.
      6. The authorized officer took possession of the premises and the        G
containers stacked thereon. Immediately upon eviction and taking
possession, the Port Trust deployed security guards for protection of the
premises. Several containers remained at the premises at the time of
taking possession.

                                                                               H
834            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A            7. After taking possession, the authorized officer wrote a letter
      dated 10.03.2008 informing the Estate Officer that the land has been
      recovered from the STPL on 08.03.2008 along with the containers stacked
      on the premises. The Estate Officer passed an order directing the
      authorized officer to take inventory of the materials/articles/goods lying
      on the premises in the presence of a competent officer of the Port Trust
B
      and also directed the issue of notice under Section 6 of the PP Act for
      disposal of the properties left by the unauthorized occupant and also to
      publish a copy of the said notice in the newspaper as per the provisions
      of the PP Act and the rules made thereunder for disposal of the property
      lying on the premises. In the said proceedings, the respondent No.6
C     appeared on 10.03.2008 and filed an application seeking permission to
      remove the huge number of containers from the premises. The Estate
      Officer rejected the application, which has not been questioned by the
      sixth respondent.
             8. In terms of the aforesaid order, a notice under sub-section (1)
D     of Section 6 of the PP Act was issued by the Estate Officer to remove
      or cause to be removed or disposed of by public auction any property
      remaining on the premises. A copy of the said notice was also issued
      through a local daily newspaper. The respondents/writ petitioners herein
      preferred a writ petition, inter alia, seeking permission to remove the
      containers lying on the premises by contending that they could not be
E     restrained from removing the containers till realization of dues from the
      STPL. It was further contended that the Port Trust had wrongly withheld
      the containers belonging to them and that they had no privity of contract
      with the Port Trust and, therefore, not liable to pay any rent to the Port
      Trust.
F            9. The Port Trust opposed the writ petition. The learned Single
      Judge of the Calcutta High Court, while holding that there are different
      views taken by two different Division Benches of the Calcutta High
      Court on the scope and ambit of Section 59 of the Major Port Trusts
      Act, 1963, (for short ‘the MPT Act’), referred the matter to the Chief
G     Justice for constitution of a larger Bench to determine the following
      question:
            “Whether Section 59 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, read
            with Sections 5 and 6 of the 1971 Act confers on KPT a right of
            lien on, or the right to detain, seize and/or sell the goods of third
H
  BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA v..                              835
     APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD..[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

      parties, lying on the public premises, for realization of arrears of   A
      rent due from tenants, irrespective of whether the owner of those
      goods had any privity of contract with KPT”.
      10. The Full Bench of the High Court held that the observations
of the Division Bench in The Board of Trustees for the Port of
Kolkata v. Canoro Resources Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2008 (1) CHN             B
941, (for short ‘Canoro Resources’) on Sections 59 and 61 of the
MPT Act were at best obiter dicta. While holding so, the Full Bench
opined that there was no conflict between the judgments of the Division
Bench in Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Indian Rayon
Corpn. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1987 (28) ELT 334 (Cal.), (for short
‘Indian Rayon’) and Canoro Resources. The observations of the                C
Full Bench are as under:
      “With due respect to the observation of the Division Bench, we
      are not in agreement with the same. In our opinion, Sections 59
      and 61 of MPTA cannot be read into proceedings under PPA,
      1971. There can be no general lien under Section 59 of MPTA            D
      which would cover the goods of a party having no privity of
      contract with KPT, which are sought to be sold in execution
      proceeding under PPA, 1971. The Division Bench in fact notices
      that KPT had in execution obtained possession of the land from
      its tenant, and seized some timbers and casing pipes which were        E
      lying on the lease hold lands at the time of taking delivery of
      possession. The owner had imported the goods. They were kept
      on open ground for the purpose of sending the same to further
      destination. Clearly, therefore, KPT had no claim against the
      goods on account of rates and rents for services rendered under
      Section 42 of the MPTA. In such circumstances, the provisions          F
      of Section 59 and 61 of MPTA were not at all relevant for deciding
      the controversy between the parties. The issue decided by the
      Division Bench did not arise on the pleadings. Nor was the point
      argued by any of the parties. The three points argued by the
      parties, 1) that KPT should have been made a party, 2) under           G
      Section 6 of the PPA, 1971 KPT was entitled to sell the goods,
      even of a stranger, found in/on premises under unauthorized
      occupation and 3) that alternative remedy was available.
      Therefore, in our opinion, findings in paragraph 18 are at best only

                                                                             H
836             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A           obiter dicta. In our opinion, the first part of para 18 of the judgment
            does not deal with the issue raised before the Court. Mr. Anindya
            Mitra had not even raised the issue about the power of KPT
            under Sections 59 or 61. No grievance had also been made while
            Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioners
            submitted that the KPT had wrongly invoked Sections 59 and 61
B
            of MPTA. The whole issue was limited only to the powers of
            KPT under the PPA, 1971. In our opinion, it was a territory
            travelled into by the Division Bench, without being invited therein,
            either in the pleadings or the submissions of the learned counsel.
            These observations, therefore, cannot be treated as a precedent
C           on interpretation of Sections 59 and 61 of MPTA. In our opinion,
            the issue with regard to the ambit of Section 59 and 61 has been
            correctly decided by the Division Bench in Indian Rayon
            Corporation Ltd. (supra). This judgment is in consonance with
            the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s. Sriyanesh
            Knitters (supra).
D
            For the reasons stated above, we are unable to accept the
            submission of Mr. Anindya Mitra that there is no conflict between
            the earlier. Division Bench Judgment in Indian Rayon
            Corporation Ltd. (supra) and the later Division Bench judgment
            in Canoro Resources Ltd. (supra). The view taken in first
E           part of paragraph 18 of the judgment in Canoro Resources Ltd.
            (supra) is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court
            and therefore, cannot be said to be good law.”
             11. After answering the reference as above, the Full Bench
      directed placing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge for
F     decision on merits. The Port Trust has challenged the legality and
      correctness of the aforesaid judgment of Full Bench in these appeals.
             12. Appearing for the appellants, Shri Parag P. Tripathi, learned
      senior counsel, submits that the premises in question is a “public premises”
      as defined under the PP Act. There is no bar for the Port Trust to
G     initiate action for eviction of unauthorized occupant from the premises
      or to dispose of goods and materials lying in public premises which may
      not necessarily belonging to the erstwhile tenant/licensee of the said
      premises. The Port Trust has initiated action for the eviction of the
      unauthorized occupant under the PP Act. The Port Trust has not initiated
H
   BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA v..                              837
      APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD..[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

any action under the MPT Act. Section 6 of the PP Act must be read            A
and interpreted on its own. It is not dependent upon Sections 59 and 61
of the MPT Act. It is argued that the judgment of the Division Bench of
the High Court in Indian Rayon has no application to the facts of the
present case. It is unnecessary for the Court to conjointly read Sections
59 and 61 of the MPT Act and Sections 5 and 6 of the PP Act for the
                                                                              B
purpose of evicting an unauthorized occupant. It is further argued that
the Full Bench ought to have held that the proceedings initiated by the
Port Trust also covers the respondents/writ petitioners and that they are
bound by the order of the Estate Officer passed under Sections 5 and 6
of the PP Act.
       13. On the other hand, Shri Chira Ranjan Addy, learned counsel         C
appearing for the respondents, submits that there is no privity of contract
between the Port Trust and the respondents/writ petitioners and that the
Port Trust does not acquire any right in respect of the goods of the third
parties. Hence, the observations made in Canoro Resources cannot
be justified. The respondents/writ petitioners being third parties, their     D
goods can never be the subject-matter of lien having regard to the express
language contained in Section 61 of the MPT Act. It is further argued
that the writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge of the
High Court and that all contentions in relation to the application Section
6 of the PP Act can be considered by the High Court. The Full Bench
has considered all the aspects of the case and has clarified the legal        E
position. This Court in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
and Ors. v. Sriyanesh Knitters, (1999) 7 SCC 359, has considered
the scope of different provisions of the MPT Act and has held that these
provisions do not authorize the Port Trust to have general lien over goods
belonging to the writ petitioners.                                            F
      14. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.
       15. It is not in dispute that the premises is a “public premises” as
defined under the PP Act. The Port Trust initiated action for eviction of
the STPL, an unauthorized occupant of the premises under the provisions       G
of the PP Act. The STPL has contested the proceedings before the
Estate Officer. On 09.07.2007, Estate Officer passed an order of eviction
and also directed the STPL to pay the damages for unauthorized use

                                                                              H
838             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     and occupation of the premises. Notice was issued under Section 5(1)
      of the PP Act for evicting the STPL. It is clear from the records that all
      the persons concerned with the premises were also notified in accordance
      with law. An order was passed on 19.02.2008 appointing an authorized
      officer for recovery of possession in terms of the aforesaid order of
      eviction. The authorized officer took possession of the premises and
B
      the containers lying on the premises. The authorized officer was permitted
      to take inventory of the materials/articles goods lying on the premises
      and was also directed to issue notice under Section 6 of the PP Act for
      disposal of the properties left by the unauthorized occupant. A notice
      was also published under Section 6(1) of the Act in the local newspaper
C     to remove or cause to be removed or dispose of by public auction any
      property remaining within the premises. At this stage, the respondents/
      writ petitioners have filed the writ petition before the High Court for a
      direction to the Port Trust to permit them to remove the containers
      belonging to them which were lying on the premises.
D            16. The PP Act provides for eviction of occupants from public
      premises and for certain incidental matters. This Act was enacted to
      provide for a speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants
      of the public premises. It is clear from the statement of object and reasons
      of the PP Act that it has become impossible for government to take
      expeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorised occupation of
E     public premises and recovery of rent or damages for such unauthorised
      occupation. It is, therefore, considered imperative to restore a speedy
      machinery for the eviction of persons who are in unauthorised occupation.
             17. Section 2(g) defines the expression ‘unauthorised occupation’
      in relation to public premises as under:-
F
            (g) “unauthorized occupation”, in relation to any public premises,
            means the occupation by any person of the public premises without
            authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in
            occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority
            (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under
G           which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has
            been determined for any reason whatsoever”.
             18. Section 5 lays down the procedure for eviction of unauthorized
      occupants. Section 5A was inserted by Act 61 of 1980, which has come
      into force with effect from 20.12.1980. This Section provides for removal
H
   BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA v..                              839
      APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD..[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

of unauthorized construction on or against or in front of any public          A
premises. The relevant provisions for the purpose of this case are sub-
section (1)(b) and sub-section (3) of Section 5A, which are as under:-
      “5A. Power to remove unauthorized constructions, etc.-
      (1) No person shall-
      (a) …….                                                                 B

      (b) display or spread any goods.
      (c) …….
      on, or against, or in front of, any public premises except in
      accordance with the authority (whether by way of grant or any           C
      other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy
      such premises.
      (2) …….
      (3) Where any movable structure or fixture has been erected,
                                                                              D
      placed or raised, or any goods have been displayed or spread, or
      any cattle or other animal has been brought or kept, on any public
      premises, in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) by
      any person, the estate officer may, by order, remove or cause to
      be removed without notice, such structure, fixture, goods, cattle
      or other animal, as the case may be, from the public premises and       E
      recover the cost of such removal from such person as an arrear
      of land revenue.”
       19. Section 6 provides for disposal of the property left on the
public premises by unauthorized occupants. The relevant sub-Sections
for the purpose of this case are sub-sections (1A) and (2) of Section 6,      F
which are as under:-
      “6. Disposal of property left on public premises by
      unauthorized occupants.-
      (1) …..
                                                                              G
      (1A) Where any goods, materials, cattle or other animal have
      been removed from any public premises under section 5A, the
      estate officer may, after giving fourteen days’ notice to the persons
      owing such goods, materials, cattle or other animal and after
      publishing the notice in at least one newspaper having circulation
                                                                              H
840             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A            in the locality, dispose of, by public auction, such goods, materials,
             cattle or other animal.
             (1B) …..
             (2) Where any property is sold under sub-section (1), the sale
             proceeds thereof shall, after deducting the expenses of the sale
B            and the amount, if any, due to the Central Government or the
             [statutory authority] on account of arrears of rent or damages or
             costs, be paid to such person or persons as may appears to the
             estate officer to be entitled to the same:
             Provided that where the estate officer is unable to decide as to
C            the person or persons to whom the balance of the amount is payable
             or as to the apportionment of the same, he may refer such dispute
             to the civil court of competent jurisdiction and the decision of the
             court thereon shall be final”.
             20. It is clear from the above provisions that any person in
D     occupation of the public premises without authority for such occupation
      is an unauthorized occupant. The expression ‘spread on any public
      premises’, contained in sub-section (1)(b) of Section 5A in the context
      also means ‘lying on any premises’. Sub-section (3) of Section 5A
      authorizes the Estate Officer to remove any goods lying on any public
E     premises after an order of eviction has been made under Section 5 of
      the Act. It is immaterial whether the said goods belong to the erstwhile
      tenant/licensee or to any other party. Sub-section (1A) of Section 6
      authorises the Estate Officer to dispose of such goods/materials, etc.
      after giving fourteen days’ notice to the persons owning such goods and
      other procedure prescribed therein. It is not necessary that the persons
F     owning the goods lying on the premises should be erstwhile tenants/
      licensees. It is also not necessary that there should be a privity of contract
      between the Port Trust and the third party to whom such goods and
      materials belong for disposing of the property by the Estate Officer under
      Section 6.
G           21. In Indian Rayon, the Division Bench was dealing exclusively
      with lien under the MPT Act. It has not considered eviction of
      unauthorized tenants under Section 6 of the PP Act. This judgment is in
      conformity with the judgment of this Court in M/s. Sriyanesh Knitters
      (supra).
H
   BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA v..                             841
      APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD..[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

       22. In Canoro Resources the Division Bench was considering            A
the matter where an eviction order had been passed by the Estate Officer
under the PP Act. In the execution of the said order, the Estate Officer
obtained possession of the land from the tenant and seized the timber
and casing pipes which were lying on the leasehold land. The owner of
these goods, challenged the order of the Estate Officer in a writ petition
                                                                             B
by contending that there was no privity of contract between him and the
Port Trust. In this background, the Division Bench held that a conjoint
reading of Sections 59 and 61 of the MPT Act vis-a-vis Sections 5 and
6 of the PP Act make it clear that if any goods are found to be lying on
the land of the Port Trust, and for such land any rent is due or payable,
the Port Trust has not only the lien over the goods, but also the right to   C
sell those goods so as to appropriate the sale proceedings towards the
rental dues.
        23. As noticed above, the proceeding initiated in Canoro
Resources was under the PP Act. Therefore, it was not necessary for
the Division Bench to read Sections 59 and 61 of the MPT Act into the        D
proceeding initiated under the PP Act. The Full Bench, in our view, was
justified in holding that those observations were, at best, obiter dicta.
The Full Bench was also justified in holding that there is no conflict
between the two judgments of the Division Bench in Indian Rayon and
Canoro Resources.
                                                                             E
       24. In the instant case, the contention urged on behalf of the Port
Trust is that even if the goods belonging to the third parties are found
lying on the premises after an order of eviction passed under Section 5,
it was entitled to sell the goods and deduct from the sale proceeds any
amount due to the Port Trust on account of arrears of rent or damages,
etc and that the balance of the sale proceeds shall be paid to such person   F
or persons, as may appear to the Estate Officer, to be entitled for the
same. We are in complete agreement with this submission made on
behalf of the Port Trust. We are of the view that Section 6 of the PP
Act has been enacted with obvious purpose of enabling statutory
authorities to take all consequential steps after receiving possession of    G
public premises and for recovery of dues, etc. The said provision ought
not to be interpreted in a way which defeats the very purpose of its
enactment. Section 6 of the PP Act must be read independent of, and
not dependant on, Sections 59 and 61 of the MPT Act. As noticed

                                                                             H
842             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     above, Section 6 of the PP Act applies, inter alia, to the persons who
      keep their goods in the public premises whether they are tenants/licensees,
      sub-tenants or any other parties. The Estate Officer, under Section 6 of
      the PP Act, is entitled to sell the goods even of a stranger, found in/on
      the premises under unauthorized occupation.
B            25. The Full Bench of the High Court had already directed the
      writ petition to be placed before the learned Single Judge for decision on
      merits. We request the learned Single Judge of the High Court to decide
      the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months
      from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, keeping in mind the
      observations made in this Judgment.
C
             26. The Civil Appeals are disposed of in the above terms. There
      will be no order as to costs.

      Divya Pandey                                              Appeals disposed of.

D




E




F




G




H