1. License revocation — Eviction proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 — Writ petition challenging notice — Subsequent eviction order. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 353
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.Santosh Hegde : V.N.Khare
Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Versus
Sunita Mehra
Case No. : 1079 of 2000
Date of Decision : 2/14/00
A court cannot set aside an eviction order if the order was not challenged in the original writ petition or if the petition was not subsequently amended to challenge the order.
Headnote:(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Eviction of unauthorised occupants - Challenge to eviction order - Where the order of eviction passed by the statutory authority is not challenged in the writ petition and the petition is not amended to challenge the said order, the court is not justified in setting aside the eviction order in appeal. (Para 3)
(B) Writ Petition - Dismissal for non-prosecution - Effect on interim orders - Dismissal of a writ petition for non-prosecution results in the vacation of any interim orders passed therein. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The owner of premises granted a license for running a cafeteria. Upon revocation of the license, proceedings for eviction were initiated under the relevant Act. The licensee challenged the notice via a writ petition. The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, and the interim order was vacated. Subsequently, an eviction order was passed, and possession of the premises was taken. Although the writ petition was later restored, the eviction order was not challenged through an amendment to the petition. The appellate court set aside the eviction order on the grounds that the licensee was denied an opportunity of hearing.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the eviction order was not challenged in the writ petition and no grounds for its invalidity were stated, the appellate court was not legally justified in setting aside the order.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside an eviction order passed by the statutory authority when the order was not challenged in the writ petition nor amended to be included in the records.
Ratio Decidendi: An order of eviction cannot be set aside by a court if the aggrieved party has failed to challenge the order in the pleadings or amend the petition to include the challenge, particularly when the order was passed after the dismissal of the writ petition and the vacation of interim relief.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an eviction order can be set aside when the writ petition was not amended to challenge it and no grounds for invalidity were stated. (Para 3 )
3. The writ petition was not amended to challenge the eviction order, nor was the order made part of the record in the appeal. (Para 3 )
4. A court cannot set aside an order of eviction if such order has not been challenged in the pleadings or made part of the record. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Respondent granted one year to vacate premises. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Can a court set aside an eviction order if the order was not challenged in the original writ petition?
No. If the writ petition is not amended to challenge the eviction order and the order is not made part of the case records, the court is not legally justified in setting aside that order. (Para 3 )
7. Does the failure to include an order in the record of a letters patent appeal preclude the court from setting it aside?
Yes. If the order of eviction is not made part of the records of the case in the appeal, the court is not legally justified in setting aside that order. (Para 3 )
V.N.KHARE, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE appellant herein is the owner of the premises. In the year 1973, the appellant granted licence to the respondent herein for running a cafeteria in the premises. Subsequently, the appellant revoked the said licence and wrote to the Estate Officer appointed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for taking proceedings for eviction of the respondent. Consequently, the Estate Officer issued a notice to the respondent. It is at that stage the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 before the High Court of Calcutta challenging the aforesaid notice. In the said notice, a time-bound interim order was also passed. Subsequently, it was ordered that the interim order was to continue till the disposal of the writ petition. In the meantime, the Registry of the High Court reported that the respondent (sic herein) had not taken steps for service on the respondents in the writ petition. The High Court granted time to the respondent to comply with the default notice. Since no steps were taken within the time, the High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. As the writ petition was dismissed, interim order also stood vacated. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the Estate Officer proceeded with the case against the respondent. Subsequently, when the respondent learnt that the writ petition has been dismissed, she filed an application for restoration of the case. On that application, the writ petition was restored. However, on 24-2-1982, the Estate Officer passed the eviction order and as a result of the said order the appellant took possession of the said premises. Ultimately, the writ petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, who dismissed the said writ petition. The respondent thereafter filed a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench, Calcutta High Court took the view that since the respondent was denied the opportunity of hearing before the Estate Officer, the order of eviction passed on 24-2-1982 was bad in law. Therefore, the said order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The Estate Officer was directed to proceed afresh after giving opportunity to the respondent. It is against the said order of the High Court the appellant is in appeal before us.
(3) THE short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether there being no challenge to the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer under the Act, in the writ petition was the High Court justified in setting aside that order in appeal. It was urged that after the order of eviction was passed the writ petition was not amended by challenging the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer. No ground as regards its invalidity was also stated. It is not disputed that the writ petition was not amended after the order of eviction was passed by the Estate Officer. Even in the letters patent appeal, the order of eviction was not made to form part of the records of the case and under such circumstances the Division Bench of the High Court was not legally justified in setting aside the order dated 24-2-1982 passed by the Estate Officer. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(4) AFTER the order was dictated, the learned counsel for the respondent states that in case the respondent is required to vacate the premises in question immediately, she would be put to great hardship and, therefore, one years time may be granted to vacate the premises. To this, learned counsel for the appellant has no objection. We, therefore, direct that the respondent shall not be dispossessed from the premises in dispute for a period of one year i.e. till 13-2-2001 provided she files the usual undertaking within four weeks from today. The appellant shall restore the electricity and water suppl
