(Dipak Misra, C.J. and Amitava Roy and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.)
LIC _____________________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Nandini J. Shah & Ors. __________________________ Respondent(s)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11348/2013, decided on September 12, 2017
(IA No. 87050/2017-Permission to File Additional Documents)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Sonal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. As the issue was to be debated with regard to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal, learned Solicitor General has placed reliance on Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 and Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, (2017) 5 SCC 533.
3. Ms. Sonal, learned counsel representing the respondents, would contend that there is no quarrel about the proposition that when a challenge is made to the order passed by the Civil Court in a writ proceeding, it has to be treated as a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, no Letters Patent Appeal would lie. But in a case under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the Estate Officer cannot be considered as a Court and further the appellate forum would decide the appeal under Section 9 of the Act as the appellate officer and as per the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Nusli Neville Wadia v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 978, which has placed reliance on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in N.P. Berry v. Delhi Transport Corporation 15 (1979) DLT 108 (para 19), it is not a Civil Court and therefore, the order passed by the said appellate forum can be challenged under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in that event, an intra-court appeal would be maintainable.
4. List for further hearing on 21.09.2017.
———
