( 1 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri P. P. Kothari, the learned counsel for the non- applicant.

( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Estate Officer dated 1-4-1991, whereby the applicant was evicted by the Estate Officer by exercising power under section 5 (1) of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Public Premises Act"), and directed to pay damages, as well as the order passed by the District Judge, nagpur, under section 9 of the Public Premises Act, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed.

( 3 ) SHRI Samudra, the learned counsel for the applicant, contended that the non-applicant filed an application under Clauses 13 (3) (ii) (vi) of The C. P. and berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Order" ). On 29-4-1988, the Rent Controller granted permission to issue quit notice to the applicant under Clauses 13 (3) (ii) (vi) of the Rent control Order. It is further contended that the applicant filed an appeal challenging the order dated 29-4-1988 passed by the Rent Controller before the resident Deputy Collector, who, vide order dated 11-9-1989, partly allowed the appeal of the applicant and set aside the permission granted by the Rent controller under Clause 13 (3) (ii) and maintained the permission under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order.

( 4 ) SHRI Sumudra, the learned counsel for the applicant, further contended that the applicant thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order dated 11-9-1989 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 21-3-1995 in view of the statement made by the non-applicant that it would not avail the permission granted to it to determine the tenancy of the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, contended that in the instant case, if at all the occupation of the applicant (tenant) had become unauthorised, that was only after determining the tenancy of the applicant by quit notice dated 10-8-1990 seeking possession of the premises with effect from 30-9-1990. It is contended that the said quit notice dated 10-8-1990 terminating the tenancy of the applicant was issued on the basis of the permission granted by the Rent Controller. However, since the non-applicant made a statement before this Court during the pendency of the writ petition filed by the applicant that it would not avail the permission granted to it by the Rent Controller to determine the tenancy of the applicant, the notice dated 30-11-1990 issued by the Estate Officer under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Public Premises Act cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that if the notice itself is bad in law, the order of the Estate Officer as well as the order of the District Judge cannot be sustained in law.

( 5 ) SHRI Samudra, the learned counsel for the applicant, further contended that the Estate Officer, without taking into consideration the prevalent rent in the area where the premises in question are situated, came to the wrong conclusion and recorded a finding regarding damages to be paid by the applicant at the rate of Rs. 3.- per square feet. It is submitted that the Estate Officer blindly accepted the evidence adduced by the non-applicant in this regard without verifying the aspect as to whether the same is relevant for the purpose of determining the damages. It is, therefore, contended that the orders of the Estate Officer as well as the District Judge in this regard cannot be sustained in law and need to be quashed and set aside.

( 6 ) SHRI Kothari, the learned counsel for the non-applicant, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders passed by the Estate Officer as well as the district Judge. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the non- applicant that the applicant, though fil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document