Back
High Court Of Calcutta
DEBI PRASAD
SURAJDEO SINGH - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA - Respondent
W. P. 283 Of 2003
Decided On : 05/15/2006
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - Section 4 (3) - Eviction proceeding - Notice - Service - Possession - Legal right - Maintainability of writ petition - Alternative remedy - Civil Court proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petition challenging eviction order passed by Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 against M/s. Inland Transport. Petitioner claimed to be in possession of the premises and that eviction order was passed without notice to him. Eviction order upheld by appellate authorities and Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
1. Eviction proceeding was initiated after due compliance with Section 4(3) of the 1971 Act, which provides for affixing notice on the outer door or conspicuous part of the premises. 2. Petitioner failed to appear before the Estate Officer and contest the eviction proceeding, indicating lack of possession. 3. Eviction order was affirmed by all courts, including the Supreme Court. 4. Petitioner's claim of possession and forceful dispossession without authority of law was not accepted. 5. Petitioner had instituted a suit in 1990 and filed a Misc. Appeal challenging the Estate Officer's order, which were pending. 6. Petitioner failed to establish any legal right to the premises.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of writ petition in light of alternative remedies, including pending suit and Misc. Appeal. 2. Applicability of principles of natural justice and jurisdiction in the context of eviction proceedings. 3. Burden of proof on petitioner to establish legal right and possession.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the Court should consider the circumstances of each case. 2. Where the alternative remedy has been availed of, the Court should normally not interfere. 3. A writ petition involving disputed questions of fact, which requires consideration of evidence not on record, will not normally be entertained under Article 226. 4. A person, even if in unlawful possession, cannot be dispossessed without the authority of law, but this principle does not apply where there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and no evidence of possession. 5. A writ under Article 226 is not available when the petitioner fails to establish a legal right belonging to them.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable. Similar points of law in other two writ applications (W.P. No. 282 of 2003 and W.P. No. 283 of 2003) also dismissed.
( 1 ) THREE writ applications are taken up for disposal analogously as the facts are identical and same points are involved in all the three writ applications excepting the premises in question. In the present judgment, W. P. No. 281 of 2003 is dealt with.
( 2 ) BEFORE entering into the merits of the case it will be convenient to look into the factual background of the case. In W. P. No. 281 of 2003, the premises in question is a godown being compartment No. D-2 on the ground floor of calcutta Port Trust's Warehouse at Strand Road. Since, the said premises was unauthorisedly occupied by one m/s. Inland Transport, an application was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Estate Officer invoking his jurisdiction under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for eviction of said M/s. Inland Transport. After hearing the Estate Officer by Order No. 17 dated 6. 4. 99 in proceeding no. 258 of 1998 held that M/s. Inland Transport was an unauthorised occupant and a formal order of eviction was drawn up against them under Section 5 of the Act of 1971 and they were given 15 days time to vacate the said godown.
( 3 ) CHALLENGING such order of eviction dated 6. 4. 99 passed by the estate Officer, M/s. Inland Transport preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the 1971 Act before the learned Chief Judge, city Civil Court being Misc. Appeal no. 13 of 1999. The learned Chief Judge, city Civil Court by his order dated 30. 9. 99 dismissed the said appeal. Against the judgment and order dated 30. 9,99 passed by the learned Chief Judge, city Civil Court an application under article 227 of the Constitution of India was preferred by M/s. Inland Transport before this Court being C. O. No. 3261 of 1999 which was also dismissed by this court on 24. 05. 2002. M/s. Inland Transport thereafter preferred a Special Leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25. 10. 2002.
( 4 ) IT may be mentioned here that the present writ petitioner filed a title suit being T. S. No. 1129 of 1990 in City Civil Court, Calcutta and by an order dated 12. 07. 1990 status-quo was directed to be maintained. The writ petitioner filed an application before the Estate Officer in proceeding No. 258-D of 1998 and prayed for an interim order on the ground that eviction order was passed behind the back of the writ petitioner although he was a necessary party in the said eviction proceeding. Such prayer for interim order was refused by the Estate Officer by an order dated 18. 02. 2002. Writ petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 2003 in the Court of learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court praying for stay of further proceeding in proceeding No. 258/d of 1998 including the execution of the eviction order. Learned Judge by his order dated 8. 1. 2003 stayed all further proceeding including the execution of eviction in proceeding no. 258/d of 1998.
( 5 ) IT is the contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioner that in spite of the communication of the order dated 8. 1. 2003, the respondent authority had executed the eviction order and removed all occupants of the said godown with the help of the police authorities on 19. 01. 2003.
( 6 ) THE respondent No. 1 challenged the order dated 8. 1. 2003 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court by an order dated 28. 03. 2003 directed the Court below to hear out the application by 31. 05. 2003 and liberty was granted to the respondent No. 1 to proceed with the damage proceeding being no. 258/d of 1998 against M/s. Inland Transport.
( 7 ) IN such background of facts, the present writ application was filed before this Court. At the very outset, Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised a preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of the present writ application. Mr. Mukherjee draws the attention o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
