SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Pushplata Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Estate Officer Public Work Department - Respondent
CM(M) 310 of 2022, CM Appl. 16798 of 2022 & CM Appl. 16800 of 2022
Decided On : 27-04-2022




The court emphasized that courts should not express views on eviction when stay applications are pending, ensuring procedural fairness in legal proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - The court addressed issues regarding unauthorized occupation of government premises and the procedural propriety in handling stay applications. (Paras 1, 4)

(B) The impugned orders from the learned Pr DSJ were premature as they expressed views on eviction while a stay application was pending. (Paras 2, 3)

(C) The court emphasized the importance of taking up stay applications on merits before making definitive statements regarding eviction. (Paras 3, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was declared an unauthorized occupant of a government flat, and despite default on the respondent's part, the learned Pr DSJ indicated that the petitioner was liable to be evicted.

Findings of Court:
The court directed that the stay application be decided expeditiously while maintaining interim protection against eviction.

Issues: The main issues involved were the propriety of expressing eviction views while a stay application was pending and the need for a timely decision on such applications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it was inappropriate for the learned Pr DSJ to make statements regarding eviction when the stay application was still under consideration.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. unlawful occupancy declared by estate officer. (Para 1)
2. concerns regarding premature eviction order. (Para 2)
3. impropriety in expressing eviction view. (Para 3 , 4)
4. direction to hear stay application expeditiously. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. By order dated 07th April, 2021, the Estate Officer, Public Works Department, GNCTD, held the petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant in respect of the premises located at Government Flat No. 1987, Type II, DA Flats, Sindhora Khurd, Delhi-110007. The petitioner appealed against the said decision before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge ("the learned Pr DSJ") vide PPA 02/2021, which was accompanied by an application for stay of operation of the eviction order.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that, even without taking up the petitioner's stay application on merits, and because of default in appearance on the part of the respondent, the learned Pr DSJ, has in his orders dated 28th January, 2022 and 04th March, 2022, expressed a view that the petitioner was liable to be evicted from the aforesaid premises.

3. Clearly, while the petitioner's stay application was pending, it was not proper for the learned Pr DSJ to express such a view, especially because the petitioner had been present before the learned Pr DSJ on both the aforesaid dates and the default in representation was on the part of the respondent.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent is fairly agreeable to this petition being disposed of with a direction to the learned Pr DSJ to take a decision on the stay application filed by the petitioner within a time bound frame on the next date when the matter is listed before him and for continuance of the interim protection granted by this Court vide its order dated 04th April, 2022, till a decision is taken by the learned Pr DSJ on the stay application of the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Pr DSJ to hear and decide the petitioner's stay application filed along with PPA 02/2021 (Pushplata Sharma v. Estate Officer), as expeditiously as possible and if possible on the very next date when the matter is listed, i.e. 06th May, 2022.

6. The interim protection granted by this Court vide its order dated 04th April, 2022, shall remain in operation and shall abide by the order to be passed by the learned Pr DSJ on the petitioner's stay application.

7. This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top