Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Eveready Industries India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Uco Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking reliefs under article 227 (Para 1) |
| 2. course of events leading to eviction (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on procedural flaws and interests (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. counterarguments from the respondent (Para 16 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. due process followed in eviction decision (Para 22 , 29) |
| 6. final thoughts on legality and merits of the case (Para 30 , 31) |
| 7. dismissal of petition with direction to vacate (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) set-aside the impugned judgment dated 17.05.2022 upholding the Order passed by the Estate Officer dated 1.07.2021 passed by the Estate Officer; and/or (b) Pass any such other and further orders in favour of the Petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. A perusal of the record reveals that the following course of events have culminated into the controversy before this Court in the instant petition:
a. The respondent had filed an Application under Section 4 of the
The eviction under the Public Premises Act was upheld as lawful, with sufficient notice and adherence to due process, and claims of bias against the Estate Officer were rejected.
High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 requires proving gross illegality or irregularity for intervention; cancellation of lease upheld based on violations of lease conditions.
The court emphasized that eviction under the Public Premises Act requires subjective satisfaction of unauthorized occupation, ensuring fairness in administrative actions.
PP Act prevails over state rent acts for evicting unauthorized occupants from public premises, including pre-existing tenancies post-acquisition; unauthorized assignment, decades-long rent default, a....
The necessity for eviction must be justified in addition to establishing unauthorized occupation under the Public Premises Act, as reaffirmed by prior judicial interpretations.
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 does not allow it to reappraise evidence or substitute its judgment for that of an inferior court unless there is a grave legal issue.
The High Court's writ jurisdiction is limited to examining errors apparent on the record, not to reassess facts or evidence in eviction cases under the Public Premises Act.
Mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises.
A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard t....
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
