Back
High Court Of Delhi
K.R.K.TALWAR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 554 of 1967
Decided On : 11/24/1976
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1958 - SECTION 9 (4) - APPEAL - DISMISSAL FOR DEFAULT - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 9 (4) - DUTY TO HEAR APPELLANT - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Dr. Talwar, was allotted government premises in 1953. He fell into arrears of rent and the authorities terminated his tenancy and ordered his eviction. He appealed to the appellate officer, but the appeal was dismissed for his default. He applied for restoration of the appeal, but it was also dismissed. He then filed a writ petition challenging the orders of cancellation of allotment, eviction, dismissal of the appeal, dismissal of the application for restoration, and dismissal of the application for review.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellate officer had acted within his jurisdiction and according to law in dismissing the application for restoration, and that no case had properly been made out for review of his order. The court also held that the order of the appellate officer dismissing the review application was within his jurisdiction and passed according to law and is justified in the circumstances of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate officer was bound to decide the appeal on merits even when the appellant was absent? 2. Whether the order of the appellate officer dismissing the appeal for default of appearance was legal and valid? 3. Whether there was sufficient ground for restoration of the appeal? 4. Whether the order of the appellate officer dismissing the application for restoration was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 9 (4) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 does not require the appellate officer to decide the appeal on merits even when the appellant is absent. 2. The appellate officer was fully competent to dismiss the appeal for default and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us has no merit. 3. The appellant had been present before the appellate authority in the early part of the day and then had an application moved for its adjournment which was not granted. He alleges that he came to the High Court but found that he did not have a case. If it were so, it was the duty of the appellant to immediately go back to the appellate authority and attend to the appeal which was already pending. 4. The learned appellate officer was right in his observation that the petitioner really wanted adjournment and not hearing of the appeal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) AN interesting question arising for decision in this writ petition relates to the construction of sub-section (4) of section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1958 [now corresponding to section 8 (4) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971] which is as follows :
"every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible. "the question for consideration is whether an appeal preferred against the decision of an Estate Officer can, under section 9 (4), be dismissed for the default of the appellant or whether even if the appellant fails to appear when the appeal is called for hearing, the appellate officer is bound to decide the appeal on merits.
( 2 ) THE petitioner Dr. K. R. K. Talwar had been allotted eng 9-6-1953 government premises at 216, Kamla Market, New Delhi. It is not clear if a lease deed signed by the petitioner and also by the authorised officer on behalf of the President of India had been executed in respect of the premises. Dr. Talwar had an assistant called Shri H. Batra who worked in the same premises. Dr. Talwar appears to have been in large amount of arrears of rent almost from the beginning of the allotment. Though he paid something, he desired that the arrears of rent should be adjusted against some verified claim which he claimed to hold as a displaced person from West Pakistan. The first order by which the petitioner felt aggrieved was passed on 12th January, 1961 (Annexure F to the writ petition) terminating the tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner requested the authorities to withdraw the termination of his lease or cancellation of his allotment but didi not succeed. The reason for the termination or cancellation of the lease or allotment probably and firstly was the undeniable A fact that the petitioner was in arrears for a number of years and the arrears had mounted to a huge sum. Secondly, it was possible that the authorities suspected that the petitioner had parted with possession of the premises to Batra inasmuch as at one stage the petitioner requested the authorities to evict Batra from the premises.
( 3 ) IN due course, notice to show cause why he should not be evicted from the premises was issued to the petitioner under section 4 and the eviction order was passed under section 5 by the Estate Officer after hearing the petitioner. The order of the Estate Officer dated 5-1-1965 (Annexure M to the writ petition) gave full reasons for holding that both Dr. Talwar and Shri Batra are in unauthorised occupationof the premises. The order of eviction was later passed on 11-1-1965 and served on the petitioner on 27-1-1965.
( 4 ) AN appeal was filed by the petitioner under section 9 (1) against the order of the Estate Officer to the appellate officer who was Shri M. S. Joshi, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi (now M. S. Joshi, J. of this High Court ). The appeal was fixed for hearing on 14-7-1965 but the appellant did not turn up till after 4 P. M. and the appeal was, therefore, dismissed for his default. An application was made for restoration of the appeal on the ground that he had to go to the High Court to attend his case and he could not return from the High Court till 4. 45 P. M. It was found as a fact that the appellant had no case in the High Court fixed for that date and even if he had some reason to believe that he had some such case there, he could have returned to the court of Shri M. S. Joshi very soon long before the close of Court hours, after ascertaining that there was no case of his in the High Court on that date. Subsequently, an application for review was also dismissed by Shri M. S. Joshi.- IJ The present writ petition is filed for quashing- (A) The order of cancellation of allotment, (B) The order of eviction, (C) The order dismissing the appeal for default, (D) The order dismissing the application for restoration, and (E) The order dism
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
