1980 Supreme(Raj) 144
Rajasthan High Court
S.C. Agrawal J.
M/s Chandra and Company - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 397 of 1980
Decided On : November 12, 1980
Advocates Appeared:
M.C. Bhandari & K.N Joshi, for Petitioner; Rajesh Balia, Deputy Government Advocate
Headnote:(a) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1964 (Rajasthan) -Government cannot evict person forcibly without first initiating proceedings as provided in the Act(b) Specific Relief Act, 1963, s. 6—State is not free to act in a manner as to dispossess a person in possession otherwise than in due course of law.(c) Constitution of India, Art. 226—Person in possession of public premises forcibly dispossessed by State Officers without due cause to law—Such person can file Writ.
There is a distinction between a case where the Government is seeking to evict a person in unauthorised occupation of Government property and the unauthorised occupant approaches the Court for relief against the said eviction and a case where State Government or its officers have forcibly evicted an unauthorised occupant from Govt. property without the authority of law. In a case where the State, or its officers, have taken the law in their own hands by forcibly ejecting a person from Govt. property without following the procedure laid down by law, the principle on the basis of which the Court gives relief is that laid down by Supreme Court in Bishan Das vs. State of Punjab that a Government, functioning in a society governed by a Constitution which guarantees to its citizens against arbitrary invasion by the executive of peaceful possession of the property, cannot be permitted to take law into their own hands and dispossess a person by display of force in callous disregard of the normal requirements of the rule of law. It cannot be said that the petitioner was a rank trespasser. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to seek relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the aforesaid arbitrary and illegal interference with its right to remain in occupation of the cinema theatre till evicted therefrom, in accordance with taw and the petitioner is entitled to be restored to the same position in which it stood prior, to aforesaid illegal action of respondents. (Paras 32 & 34)
S.C. Agrawal, J.—The Cinema house known as "Shri Ganga Theatre" (hereinafter referred to as "the Cinema Theatre"), situated in the city of Bikaner, belongs to the State of Rajasthan. The Cinema theatre was given on lease for a period of five years to M/s Balabux Anand Raj, a partnership firm, from 1st August, 1958. During the pendency of the said lease, the firm M/s Balabux Anandraj was dissolved on 12th June, 1961 and thereafter, the lease was continued in the name of Shri Anandraj on the same terms. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1962, Shri Anandraj sub-leased the cinema theatre to the petitioner and since then the petitioner has been in possession of the cinema theatre. The lease of Shri Anandraj was extended by a period of one year from August 1,1963 on the same terms and conditions. The extension was given in the name of M/s Anandraj and Company, whose sole proprietor was Shri Anandraj. After the expiry of the period of the lease, proceedings were initiated by the Collector, Bikaner, under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of "Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act), against M/s Anandraj and Company, and in the said proceedings Estate Officer passed an order dated 27th August, 1968 for eviction of M/s Anandraj and Company, from the cinema theatre, The aforesaid order passed by the Estate Officer was affirmed, in appeal, by the District Judge Bikaner Two writ petitions (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 520/70 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 199/70) were filed in the Court wherein the aforesaid orders passed by the Estate Officer and the District Judge were challenged. SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 520/1970 was filed by M/s Anandraj and Co., whereas S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 199/70 was filed by the petitioner. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court (M.L. Joshi J.) by order dated 18th July, 1974. whereby the writ petition filed by M/s Anandraj and Company, was accepted and the order dated 28th Aug. 1968 passed by the Estate Officer as well as the order dated 5th August, 1970 passed by the District Judge, Bikaner were quashed and the non-petitioners in the said writ petitions were directed not to take any proceedings for eviction of M/s Anandraj and Company, in pursuance of the impugned orders. In the order aforesaid, this Court has observed that although the lease was upto 31st July, 1964, in the first instance, but in view of the acceptance of the rent upto September, 1970. by the State, the status of M/s Anandraj and Company, was that of a tenant by virtue of the principle of holding over as envisaged under sec. 116 of the Transfer of Property Act and that M/s Anandraj and Company, could not be regarded as unauthorised occupant on the date of the passing of the impugned orders. This Court, however observed that it would be open to the State to take appropriate proceedings after terminating the lease of M/s Anand Raj and Company. After the aforesaid decision of this Court, the State Government served a notice in the year 1975 on M/s Anand Raj and Company whereby the tenancy in favour of M/s Anandraj and Company was terminated. Another notice dated 26th November 1976, for the termination of the tenancy, was given to M/s Anandraj and Company and the heirs of Shri Anandraj (deceased), as well as to the petitioner firm and also to the Manager of the cinema theatre. By the aforesaid notice also these persons were informed that the tenancy should be deemed to have been terminated with effect from 31st January, 1977 and they were asked to deliver possession of the cinema theatre. Thereafter an application was submitted on behalf of the State Government before the Estate Officer under the provisions of the Act on 29th June, 1979. M/s Anandraj and Company and the heirs of Shri Anandraj (deceased) the petitioner firm and the Manager of this cinema theatre were impleaded as opposite parties in the said application. In t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
