SURESH NARAYAN KADAM & ORS.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

                        (2016] I S.C.R. 1071


              SURESH NARAYAN KADAM & ORS.                                A
                                 v.

               CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
                  (SLP(C)Nos. 1878-1879of2009)
                       FEBRUARY 05, 2016                                 B

         [MADAN B. LOKUR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
        Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1971:
       Eviction and damages - MHADA constructed some buildings           c
for lower and middle income gr01q1 - Leased out the land underneath
the buildings to the respondenl-Bank for 90 years - Bank took
possession of land and ten such buildings wilh intention of housing
the families of its 200 employees -Allotment was as per the absolute
discretion of the management and not as a condition of service nor
                                                                         D
any right vested in any staff memher - With a view to redevelop the
plot in question, Bank stopped a/lolling the flats and .floated a
proposal for redevelopment of /he p/01 by demolishing the building
which necessitaled eviclion of employees from !he j/als occupied by
them - Eviction ordered by Estate Officer - Employees also directed
lo pay damages - Challenge againsl - Held: If there is violation of      E
provision of ie.ase deed between MHADA and /he Bank, it is for
them to settle their differences - Employees do not come into picture
at all - Employees have no/ made out case ji)/· their entitlement to
continue in the allotted premises since the allotmen/ irns not part of
their condition of service - Time granted to employees to mcate -
                                                                         F
However, order to pay damages to the bank for the use and
occupation of the premises allotted is set aside.
        Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Conrt
      HELD: There is no doubt that none of the employees have
any right to retain the allotted premises, more particularly since       G
the allotment was not a part of their condition of service. The
contention was raised that the hmd was leased out by the MHADA
to the Bank for the purposes of housing middle income group
employees or lower income group employees and as a result of
the redevelopment plan, the Bank was intending to demolish the
                                                                         H
                                1071
1072                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2016] 1 S.C.R.


 A     buildings and to construct luxury apartments for their managerial
       level officers, contrary to the lease agreement with MHADA.
       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
 B     come into the picture at all. The various clauses in the lease
       agreement do not in any manner involve. the employees and for
       them to raise au.issue about any alleged violation of the provisions
       of the lease deed is totally inconsequential. Since the employees
       have been residing in the flats for a considerable period of time,
       they are granted time to vacate the premises allotted to them on
 C     or before 31" March, 2016. The Bank has demanded damages
       from the employees both who are still working with the Bank
       and those who have retired. Since the employees were pursuing
       their remedies before the High Court as well as before this Court,
       it is not appropriate to direct them to pay any damages to the.
 D     Bank for the use and occupation of the premises allotted nor it
       is appropriate to permit the Bank to recover the damages awarded
       against the employees. [Paras 18 to 20, 23, 24][1077-G; 1078-
       A-C, F, H; 1079-A]
              Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India (2005)
              6 SCC 344: 2005 (l)Suppl. SCR 929; Afcons
 E            Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co.
              (P) Ltd. (2010) 8 sec 24: 2010 (8) SCR 1053 ; K.
              Srinivas Rao v. D.A.      Deepa (2013) 5 SCC
              226: 2013 (2) SCR 126: 2013 (2) SCR 126 - referred
              to.
 F                            Case Law Reference
       2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 929        referred to.           Para 3
       2010 (8) SCR 1053              referred to.           Para3
       2013 f2) SCR 126               referred to.           Para3
 G
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP Nos. 1878-1879 OF
       2009
             From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2008 in Writ Petition
       No. 4417/2008 and Writ Petition No. 5589/2008 of the High Court of
       Bombay.
 H
 SURESH NARAYAN KADAM v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA                                  1073



       Prashant Bhushan for the Appellants.                                     A
      RanjitKumar, SG, Jaideep Gupta, Ajay Sharma, Nee lam Sharma,
Rajeev Sharma, Dinesh Mathur, Priyanka Bharti, Rachna·Gupta, Tapesh
Kumar Singh, Mohd. Waquas for the Respondents.
                                    '.
       The Order of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                B
      MADAN B. LOKUR, J. I. The proceedings in these petitions
as indeed the proceedings in the Bombay High Court (out of which the
present petitions have arisen) indicate a clear need for encouraging an
amicable settlement process, preferably through mediation, in which the ·
services of a mediator well-versed in the art, science and technique of
mediation may be taken advantage of. The alternative, of course, is c
protracted litigation which may not be the best alternative for the
contesting parties or for a society that requires expeditious justice delivery.
      2. In his Foreword written on i'2•h April, 2011 to the first edition of
"Mediation Practice & Law- The path to successful dispute resolution"
written by Mr. Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate and Mediator, Mr. Fali            D
S. Nari man, a Senior Advocate of this Court and a respected jurist,
writes:
      "[T]he same subject matter of disputation between two parties
      can be dealt with in two different ways, not necessarily exclusive:
      first, by attempting to resolve a dispute in such a way that the          E
      parties involved win as much as possible and lose as little as
      possible through the intervention of a third party steeped in the
      techniques of mediation; and second. (failing this) the dispute would
      be Jeft to be resolved by each party presenting its case before a
      disinterested third party with an expectation ofa binding decision
                                                                                F
      on the merits of the case: a win-all lose-all, final determination".
      The second alternative may not be the best alternative, as already
mention~d by us.

      3. The decision rendered by the High Court which is under
challenge before us states that efforts were made to have the disputes          G
between the contesting parties settled but it is clear that no institutional
mechanism was invited to assist in the settlement process. The
proceedings before us also indicate that several efforts were made to
encourage the contesting parties to arrive at a settlement, and at one
pqint of time the parties did reach an interim arrangement but that could
                                                                                H
1074                          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2016] I S.C.R.



 A     not fructify into a final settlement only because of the absence of an
       intervention through an institutional mechanism. Appreciating this, this
       Court has consistently encouraged the settlement of disputes through an
       institutionalized alternative dispute resolution mechanism and there are
       at least three significant decisions rendered by this Court on the subject.
       They are: (i) Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Unio11 of India' (ii)
 B
       A/cons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P)
       Ltd.' (iii) K. Srinims Rao v. D.A. Deep11. 3
               4. That apart this Court has, on several occasions, referred disputes
       for amicable settlement through the Mediation Centre functioning in the
       Supreme Court premises itselfand Mediation Centres across the country
 c     in a large variety of disputes including (primarily) matrimonial disputes.
       In spite of the encouragement given by this Court, for one reason or
       another, institutionalized mediation has yet to be recognized as an
       acceptable method of dispute resolution provoking Mr. Fali S. Nariman
       to comment in the same Foreword in the context of the Afco11 's decision
 D     that "'Mediation must stand on its own; its success judged on its own
       record, Un-assisted by Judges."
             5. With this prologue, it is necessary to state the facts of the dispute
       before us. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
       (MHADA) had constructed some buildings for the lower and middle
 E     income groups in a complex known as Samata Nagar, Kand iv Ii, Mumbai.
       Each building had twenty flats. The Central Bank ofln<lia (for short 'the
       Bank')took possession of the land and ten such buildings on I 61hAugust,
       1982 with the intention ofhousingthe families ofa total of200 employees.
       Pursuant thereto, the Bank issued Circulars on I S'h September, 1982
       and 25'h May, 1983 relating to the policy of allotment of the flats to its
 F     Class III and Class IV employees.
              6. The Circular dated I 5'h September, 1982 provided that the flats
       would be allotted to employees under the jurisdiction of the Central Office,
       Bombay Main Office and the Bombay Metropolitan Regional Office. It
       also provided that the allotment would be as per the absolute discretion
 G     of the management and that the facility of allotment was not given as a
       condition of service nor did any right vest in any staff member.

       ' 12005) 6 sec 344
       2 120 IO)   s sec 24
 H     '(2013)5SCC226
 SURESH NARAYAN KADAM v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA                                 1075
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

       7.The Circular dated 25'" May, 1983 made some minor                     A
modifications in the eligibility for allotment but the sum and substance,
as far as the present proceedings are concerned, remained more or less
the same.
       8. Based on the above broad principles, the allotment of flats was
made to its employees by the Bank. We are told that presently, about 50        B
families are living in these flats, the rest being vacant.
       9. As earlier agreed upon by MHADA and the Bank, on 29'" July,
1994 MHADA leased out the land underneath the buildings to the Bank
for a period of90 years. Some of the salient conditions mentioned in the
Lease Deed read as follows:-                                                   C
       "(h) Not to assign, sublet, underlet or otherwise transfer in any
       other manner whatsoever including parting with the possession of
       the whole or any part of the said land or its interest thereunder or
       benefit of th is lease to any person or persons or change the user
       of the said land or any part thereof without the previous written       D
       permission of the Authority.
       (i) To use the said land and the tenements in the said buildings
       constructed thereon for the purpose ofresidence of its employees
       as service quarter only and for no other purpose.
       (I) Not to make any excavation upon any part of the said land           E
       without the previous consent of the Authority in writing first
       obtained, except for the purpose of repairing renovation or
     · rebuilding the existing structure standing on the said land or
       utilization of permissible F.S.I. if any as per Development control
       rules/regulations on the plot leased to the lessee which is a part of
                                                                               F
       a layout of village Poisar at Borivali Bombay."
         10. Apparently with a view to redevelop the plot by demolishing
 the buildings purchased by the Bank, it appears that the Bank stopped
 allotting the flats from sometime in 1997 onwards and on or about 15'"
 June, 2007 it floated a proposal for redevelopment of the plot by
                                                                               G
 demolishing the buildings. The proposal for redevelopment necessitated
 the eviction of the employees from the flats occupied by them. Therefore,
 sometime in July 2007 eviction notices were issued to the employees-
 allottees under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of
·Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short "the Act").
                                                                               H
1076                    SUPREME C.OURT REPORTS                  [2016] I S.C.R.


 A            11. Some of the employees contested the proceedings and
       eventually an order was passed by the Estate Officer appointed under
       the Act in 2008 rejecting all their submissions and they were directed to
       vacate the public premises within 15 days of the date of publication of
       the order failing which they were liable to be evicted, if need be, by the
       use of such force as may be necessary. The employees were also
 B
       ordered to pay damages with effect from l 5'h June, 2007 till the date of
       handing over of peaceful possession of the public premises to the Bank
       failing which the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
              12. Feeling aggrieved, the employees preferred appeals under
       Section 9 of the Act which came to be dismissed by the City Civil Court
 c     in Bombay in June 2008. The Appellate Authority dismissed all the
       appeals with costs but stayed the order of eviction for a period of seven
       days to enable the employees to approach the Bombay High Court.
              13. The employees then approached the High Court by filing Writ
       Petition Nos.4417 of 2008 and 5589 of 2008 which were heard by a
 D     learned Single Judge and dismissed by a judgment and order dated 19"'
       December, 2008 {impugned before us).
             14. The employees made the following four submissions before
       the High Court:
 E     (i)     MHADA had leased the land to the Bank for building residential
               quarters for C)ass IV employees;
       (ii)    the premises were part of the conditions of services of the Class
               IV employees which could not be taken away by issuing a quit
               notice;
 F     (iii)   The purpose for which the Bank required vacant buildings was
               for demolishing them in order to build new buildings for housing
               their managerial staff; and
       (iv)    The notice for eviction did not spell out the reasons for evicting
               the petitioners.
 G            15. Each of these contentions was rejected by the High Court but
       before us, learned counsel for the petitioners effectively pressed only
       the I" and J•d contentions, being interlinked.
             16. At this stage, we must point out that the High Court has
       observed that several adjournments were granted to the parties to
 H
 SURESH NARAYAN KADAM v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA                                  1077
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

negotiate a settlement. However, the parties failed to arrive at any            A
settlement and it is for this reason that the High Court was compelled to
deliver judgment. Before this Court also several efforts were made to
arrive at some kind of an amicable settlement including providing
alternative accommodation to the employees or making monthly payment
to them in lieu of the allotted premises. However, for one reason or
                                                                                B
another despite best efforts made by learned counsel for the parties, no
settlement could be arrived at.
      17. At one stage, the following interim arrangement was broadly
accepted by both the sides as noted in the order dated 29'" November,
2010 but even that interim arrangement did not fructify into a settlement
between the parties and it is for this reason that we too have been             c
compelled to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the judgment
and order passed by the High Court.
      "(i) 49 employees (sub staff) are occupying units spread over
      several buildings. Though most of the units are vacant, as some
      of the units are occupied, the Bank is not in a position to demolish      D
      the buildings and take up development work which it proposes. In
      the circumstances, out ofthe 49 employees. those who are allottces
      of quarters, will be shifted by the Bank to one or two buildings so
      that the Bank will be able to demolish the other buildings and take
      up the development.                                                       E
      (ii) It is made clear that if any family members of deceased al lottees
      (who have been given compassionate appointment) are continuing
      in such units, they wi II not be entitled to alternative accommodation.
      Such occupants will have to vacate.
      (iii) The Bank will, in the meanwhile, continue its efforts to identify   F-
      alternative premises for those who are being shifted to the two
      buildings."
        18. There is no doubt that 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. This is quite clear from the          G
Circulars dated 15'" September, 1982 and 25'" May, 1983. That apart,
no right based submission was made before us. 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.
                                                                                H
1078                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2016] I S.C.R.


 A             19. It was submitted before us that the land was lease.d 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 demo Iish the buildings
       and to construct luxury apartments for their managerial level officers,
       contrary to the lease agreement with MHADA. Assuming this to be
 B
       so, ifthere 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.
              20. The various clauses in the lease agreement that have been
       referred to do not in any manner involve the employees and for them to
 c     raise an issue about any alleged violation of the provisions of the lease
       deed is totally inconsequential. This is not a public interest litigation
       where the rule relating to standing can be relaxed. We are therefore not
       inclined to accept this submission of the employees that since the
       MHADA had leased out the land to the Bank for housing middle income
 D     group or lower income group employees, the Bank is disentitled from
       demolishing the buildings and constructing luxury apartments for their
       managerial level officers.
               21. The second argument advanced by the employees is really a
       different facet of the first argument and since we do not find any basis
 E     at all for the grievance of the employees against either the MHADA or
       against the Bank, we reject this submission as well.
              22. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in these petitions
       and therefore decline to grant special leave to appeal and dismiss these
       petitions but with no order as to costs.
 F            23. Since the employees have been residing in the flats for a
       considerable period of time, we grant them time to vacate the premises
       allotted to them on or before 31' March, 2016. We expect the employees
       to peacefully vacate the allotted premises and ifthere is some difficulty
       in this regard, the Bank is at liberty to approach the High Court for the
 G     implementation of its order of eviction.
              24. We may also note that the Bank has demanded damages from
       the employees both who are still working with the Bank and those who
       have retired. Jn our opinion, since the employees were pursuing their
       remedies before the High Court as well as before this Court, we do not
       think it appropriate to direct them to pay any damages to the Bank for
 H
 SURESH NARAYAN KADAM v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA                               1079
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

the use and occupation of the premises allotted nor do we think it           A
appropriate to permit the Bank to recover the damages awarded against
the employees.
Devika Gujral                           Special Leave Petitions dismissed.