Trespasser Having No Jural Relationship With State Can't Insist On Procedure For Eviction Under Public Premises Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that a rank trespasser has no recognition under law as far as illegal occupation of a public premise is concerned, and that the Court cannot accord such person with some sort of protection regarding the illegal use of the premise.

The Court in this case was dealing with a rank trespasser who was an occupant of a room in Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA), and had trespassed into the common area. He had no case that the said area had been let out to him or even that he had been permitted to use it. However, he claimed that he could not be removed except under the procedure established by law, as contemplated by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter, 'Act, 1971').

Elucidating that the Act,1971 is an enactment for eviction of unauthorized occupants of public premises, the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen went on to observe that the same postulates that the occupant but for termination, is deemed to have a relationship of that between the public authority and the occupant.

"For example, if he is an occupant of a room in GCDA by way of lease or licence, if his jural relationship comes to an end by invoking the provisions of the contract or the provisions of law, he can only be evicted by invoking the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971," the Bench explained in the appeal before it. 

In the present case, the Bench noted that the appellant had no resemblance of possession or interest either as lessee or licensee.

"He continues to use common areas and is bent on to seek assistance of law to protect his illegal use of public premises," the Court added. 

The Court also did not find any merit in the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellant such as Manjunath K. v. Bangalore Development Authority (2019), and Kumar S. v. Commissioner & Ors. (2019). The Court reasoned that the said decisions related to instances where the occupant had some semblance of a jural relationship with the State or authority to whom the building belonged, and could not be evicted without procedure established by law. 

"The rank trespasser has no recognition under law as far as illegal occupation and the court cannot clothe him with some sort of protection to accord solemnity of illegal use," the Court held while dismissing the appeal. 

Rs.15,000/- was also imposed as cost on the appellant, and the Court directed the same to be paid to GCDA within one month from the date of the order. 

The appellant was represented by Advocates Thayyib Sha P.S. and Nabil Khader. Advocates Vipin P. Varghese, Adarsh Mathew, Celine John, and Merline Mathew appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Case Title: Harris T.K. v. Greater Cochin Development Authority & Anr. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 136

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment