Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. vs Avanindra Upadhyay on 6 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831
1 MP-1498-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 1498 of 2026
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTD.
Versus
AVANINDRA UPADHYAY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Lalwani, Senior Advocate with Shri Aakash Lalwani,
Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
This petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dated
24.12.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bhopal in Case No. RCA
No. 55 of 2023 allowing the appeal partly preferred by the respondent No.1
holding that the respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay the license fee in terms
of Shop Policy 2014 of BHEL.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that that
the petitioner/applicant filed an application under Sections 5 and 7 of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, registered
as Case No. 3939/2022, seeking eviction of the respondent from an open plot
at Ancillary Area 6 Block, Habibganj, BHEL, Bhopal, along with recovery
of license fee, costs, and penalty.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 08-04-2026
11:03:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831
2 MP-1498-2026
3. That the Respondent opposed the application claiming long-
standing possession of about 40 years.
4. That the Estate Officer, vide order dated 11.05.2023, allowed the
application, declared the respondent an unauthorized occupant, and directed
eviction along with payment of license fee till handing over possession.
5. That the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal under Section 9 of
the said Act before the learned Principal District Judge, Bhopal (R.C.A. No.
55/2023), who, vide judgment dated 24.12.2025, upheld the eviction but set
aside the liability of the respondent to pay license fee and damages for
unauthorized occupation.
6. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
that the impugned order is contrary to law and record, as the learned
Principal District Judge wrongly interpreted the provisions relating to license
fee and damages under the Shop Policy, 2014 of BHEL and misapplied the
judgment in Jyotinder Singh Saluja vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., which
is a judgment in personam and presently sub judice.
7. It is further contended that the learned Appellant Court failed to
appreciate that unauthorized occupants are liable to pay penal damages, and
once Respondent No. 1 has been declared an unauthorized occupant under
the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, he is
legally bound to pay damages for unauthorized occupation. Learned counsel
for the BHEL has relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
this court in the cases Vijay Kumar Manish Kumar Huf Vs. Ashwin Bhanulal
Desai 2024 INSC 445, Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 08-04-2026
11:03:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831
3 MP-1498-2026
(1998) 7 SCC 184, Board of Control for Cricket in India and another Vs.
Netaji Cricket Club and others (2005) 4 SCC 741, and L.S. Nair Vs.
Hindustan Steel Ltd. Bhilai and others 1980 MPLJ 429.
8. The contention of the respondent No. 1 herein before the the Estate
Officer was that he has been in possession for about 40 years and has been
running a fabrication unit, providing livelihood to workers. He cited
financial hardship due to COVID-19 and claimed that he had requested
renewal of the license after its expiry in 2011 but received no response. He
asserted that payments were made up to 2018, denied receipt of notices, and
claimed compliance with license conditions. He further stated that
restrictions under the policy prevented business expansion, leading to
financial difficulties, and prayed for continuation/regularization of
possession and dismissal of the eviction proceedings.
9. Per contra, the contention of BHEL was that the petitioner, being
an institution and a Government of India undertaking governed by the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, had allotted the
disputed premises (97 ft × 62 ft) to Respondent No. 1 through an agreement
dated 28.08.2008. Respondent No. 1 defaulted in the payment of licence fees
and other dues. Despite multiple notices issued in 2022 and the termination
of the licence on 21.07.2022, Respondent No. 1 failed to clear the
outstanding dues or vacate the premises. Accordingly, BHEL sought
eviction, recovery of Rs. 51,45,556/-, and damages at the market rate for
unauthorised occupation.
10. The Estate Officer vide order dated 11.05.2023 allowed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 08-04-2026
11:03:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831
4 MP-1498-2026
application filed by the BHEL. Being aggrieved by the same the respondent
No. 1 filed appeal before the appellate authority.
11. The respondent No. 1 contended that the disputed land was not
notified under Section 3(b) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971, and therefore proceedings under the Act were not
maintainable. It was argued that the land remains in the name of the State
Government, has not been formally leased to BHEL, and that a title dispute
is pending before the High Court. Reliance was placed in the case of
Savatram Rampratap Mills v. Radheyshyam S/O Laxminarayan Goenka (D)
Through Lrs. and another (2018) 9 SCC 154.
12. The Court rejected this contention, holding that under Section
2(e) of the Act, the term “public premises” includes property “belonging to”
or under the control of a government company. Ownership is not essential;
dominion or control is sufficient. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents
including Naresh Kumar v. VIth ADJ 1995 Supp (2) SCC 579 and
Ramcharan v. Airport Authority of India, 2011 SCC OnLine MP 2466:ILR
2011 MP 2770. Accordingly, the Act was held applicable.
13. The respondent No.1 further argued violation of Sections 4 and
5 of the Act, alleging non-service of notice and lack of opportunity of
hearing. However, the record showed that multiple notices were duly served
through hand delivery, speed post, and affixation. The respondent No.1 failed
to comply. The Court held that adequate opportunity was provided and
principles of natural justice were followed.
14. It was also argued that no opportunity for cross-examination or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 08-04-2026
11:03:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831
5 MP-1498-2026
evidence was given. The Appellate Court found that such opportunities were
in fact granted, but the respondent No. 1 voluntarily chose not to cross-
examine witnesses or lead evidence. Hence, the proceedings before the
Estate Officer were held to be fair and lawful.
15. Regarding applicability of the Shop Policy, 2014, the Appellate
Court held that although the premises involved an open plot, it was allotted
for commercial activity and thus fell within the ambit of the policy.
However, since no agreement was executed after expiry of the license in
2011 in terms of the said policy, the Appellate Court held that the respondent
No.1 was not liable to pay license fee under the Shop Policy, 2014. Instead,
dues were to be calculated based on pre-policy rates with a 5% annual
increase. On limitation, relying on New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu
Ram (1976) 3SCC 40 : AIR 1996 SC1937, the Appellate Court held that
recovery under Section 7 is restricted to a period of three years. With respect
to goods lying in the premises, the Appellate Court held that the respondent
No.1 is entitled to retrieve them upon payment of dues; failing which, the
BHEL may auction the goods under Section 6 of the Act.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition.
17. Learned counsel for the BHEL has relied on Ajiz Khan (Miyan)
and others v. Union of India and others, 2017 Supreme (MP) 795 whereby it
was held the nature of possession of the petitioners, the arguments raised
by the petitioners need to be examined. The argument is that under the
previous policy, the license could be transferred in favour of the legal heirs,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 08-04-2026
11:03:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831
6 MP-1498-2026
but such condition has not been kept in the new policy. We find that the
license is not heritable. It is an agreement between parties to allow use of a
property. It may be noticed that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, reported as
(1986)4 SCC 447, the licence is not an interest in property. It is purely a
personal right. Therefore, in the absence of contract to the contrary, the legal
heirs are not entitled to continue in possession after the death of the licensee.
Therefore, the condition that license will not be heritable cannot be said to be
illegal or arbitrary. Still further, the effect of not transferring the license in
favour of the legal heirs is that the legal heirs have to compete along with
other eligible candidates for grant of license on such license fee which may
be prevalent on the date of grant of the license. Mere fact that he happens to
be the legal heir of the deceased licensee does not confer any preferential
right to continue with the permissive possession. Judgments of Supreme
Court rendered in the cases of B.M. Lall v. Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd.
AIR 1968 SC 175 and Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs. Ashalata S. Guram
(1986) 4 SCC 447 were followed.
18. This court in the case of Jyotinder Singh Saluja Vs. BHEL
Neutral Citation No. 2025 MPHC 69825 held that in the absence of any
cogent evidence, only on the basis of provision of Policy, 2014 the Estate
Officer erred in granting the damages in addition to the usages charges. No
evidence was produced to assess the market rental value. The damages
should be proved before the authority and until and unless the damages are
not proved by the reliable evidence, no amount can be awarded under the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 08-04-2026
11:03:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831
7 MP-1498-2026
head of damages. At the same time, it is also relevant to consider that against
the last agreed rate of licence fee of Rs.3718/- per month the damages were
awarded by the Estate Officer @ Rs.3,84,820/- per month. The rate of
damages awarded is highly exorbitant and cannot be given seal of approval.
In the garb of the powers, the Estate Officer had no authority to grant the
damages more than 100 times and consequently the order for payment of
damages is hereby set aside and the issue is answered accordingly.
Learned Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above judgment
is under challenge in a review petition and, therefore, is not binding in the
present case. However, we are of the considered opinion that, until the
judgment is set aside, it remains binding on this Court; hence, the submission
is rejected.
19. Learned counsel for the BHEL has relied on Anderson Wright
& Co. v. Amar Nath Roy, (2005) 6 SCC 489 whereby it was opined that the
appellants cannot be held liable to pay anything more than the standard rent
of the premises, in spite of the decree for eviction having been passed as the
same is sub judice. This submission needs a summary dismissal in view of
the judgment of this Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC
705. Both the parties have filed affidavit and counter-affidavit, placing on
record material giving the Court an idea of the rate of rent generally
prevalent in the locality where the suit property is situated. Canara Bank on
the first floor of this building is paying rent @ Rs 25 per sq ft other than
maintenance and municipal taxes. One Rumpa Ghosh entered as the tenant in
the year 2002 is paying rent @ Rs 32 per sq ft. Taking an overall view of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 08-04-2026
11:03:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831
8 MP-1498-2026
material made available by the parties, we think that the appellants should,
from the date of the decree of the eviction, pay mesne profits/compensation
for use and occupation @ Rs 15 per sq ft subject to final determination of the
same by a competent forum.
20. Learned counsel for the BHEL has also relied on Padmawati v.
Harijan Sewak Sangh, (2012) 6 SCC 460 wherein it was opined: I consider
that the petitioners are liable to pay as costs to the respondent Society for the
unlawful gains by them by illegally holding this property for 24 years and 4
months. The average rental value of the property in present days is around
Rs 10,000 per month. Though the property was given on rent in 1982 to the
petitioners’ father at Rs 102.50 paise per month, but when premises are given
to the employees on rent normally market rent is not charged and only
nominal rent is charged. I consider that in order to see what would have been
the rent during all these years, it would be appropriate to have an average
rent. I consider that for such a premises Rs 5000 per month can safely be
taken as average rent.
21. Learned counsel for the BHEL has further relied on Marshall
Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 325 wherein it
was opined: Pending obstruction application, the respondent filed a
declaratory suit being RAD Suit No. 2152 of 1991 in the Court of Small
Causes at Bombay for a declaration of his tenancy rights by contending that
there was a tenant of the premises since 1973 through M/s Halda
Engineering Company. In the said suit, the present appellant (judgment-
creditor) appeared and indicated the fact that how the decree for eviction
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 08-04-2026
11:03:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831
9 MP-1498-2026
granted in his favour had not been executed and prayed that possession
should be delivered to him immediately and also that the respondent should
be directed to deposit mesne profits from 1-1-1984 till 30-6-1996 at the
prevailing market rent. The trial court did not accept the prayer for handing
over possession but directed the respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit,
that he should pay at the rate of Rs 443.93p. per month for the said period as
mesne profit. The appellant carried the matter to the High Court
unsuccessfully. Against that order, the present appeal is filed by special
leave. When this matter was pending before this Court, the parties took
several adjournments to get the matter amicably settled. However, till today,
the matter has not been amicably settled.
22. Learned counsel for the BHEL has relied on Prema Agarwal v.
Om Prakash Gautam, (2001) 1 MP LJ 547 wherein it was opined: On
consideration of different decisions referred hereinabove, it is to be held that
plaintiffs landlords are entitled to mesne profits from the date of filing of the
suit at the rate higher than the contractual rate and for so determination the
Court can also consider, escalation in rental prices. In facts and
circumstances of the present case, the mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-
per month from the date of filing of the suit as awarded by the trial Court
seems to be justified and deserves to be upheld.
23. Learned counsel for BHEL has relied upon the aforesaid five
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court and has
prayed for the award of market rent instead of contractual rent. However, the
said judgments are based on their own facts and evidence and, therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 08-04-2026
11:03:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831
10 MP-1498-2026
cannot be applied as binding precedents in the present case.The petitioner is
required to prove the market rent of the disputed property. In the absence of
any cogent evidence, and merely on the basis of the provisions of the Policy,
2014, the Estate Officer erred in granting damages in addition to the usage
charges. No evidence was produced to assess the market rental value.
Damages must be proved before the authority, and unless they are
established by reliable evidence, no amount can be awarded under the head
of damages.It is also relevant to note that, against the last agreed licence fee
of Rs. 1,794 per year, the Estate Officer awarded damages at the rate of Rs.
20 per day. The rate of damages so awarded is highly exorbitant and cannot
be approved. Under the guise of exercising his powers, the Estate Officer had
no authority to award damages exceeding 100 times the agreed rate.
Consequently, the order directing payment of damages was rightly set aside
by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhopal.
24. It is not in dispute that the license granted in favour of
Respondent No. 1 stood expired in the year 2011 and was subsequently
terminated. The Estate Officer rightly declared the respondent No. 1 to be an
unauthorized occupant and directed eviction along with payment of dues.
The said finding of eviction has been affirmed by the learned Principal
District Judge, Bhopal.
25. The limited issue raised in the present petition pertains to the
liability of Respondent No. 1 to pay license fee/damages in terms of the
Shop Policy, 2014 of BHEL. The learned appellate court, after due
consideration, has held that in absence of any subsisting agreement or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 08-04-2026
11:03:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26831
11 MP-1498-2026
renewal of license in accordance with the Shop Policy, 2014, the respondent
No. 1 cannot be saddled with liability under the said policy.
26. This Court finds that the reasoning assigned by the learned
appellate court is based on proper appreciation of facts and law. Once the
license expired in 2011 and no fresh agreement was executed thereafter
under the Shop Policy, 2014, the terms of the said policy cannot be
retrospectively enforced against the respondent No.1. The liability, if any,
has rightly been directed to be determined on the basis of pre-existing terms
with reasonable enhancement.
27. Further, the learned appellate court has also taken into
consideration the aspect of limitation and has correctly held that recovery
under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Act, 1971 is restricted to a period of three years, in light of settled legal
position.
28. No perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error is found in the
impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction. The findings recorded are well-reasoned and based
on material available on record. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of
merit is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
MSP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 08-04-2026
11:03:50
