Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
REKHA BORANA, J
U.O.I. And Ors. - Appellant
Versus
N.R.E.C.Store Through Its Adm./Chairman - Respondent
CR 41 of 2012
Decided On : 21-03-2025
(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Suit barred by provisions of the Act - Application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC rejected by Trial Court on grounds of insufficient notice - Defendants admitted lack of proper notice in terms of Section 4 of the Act - Joint submission led to the disposal of the suit while protecting plaintiff's rights. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Eviction Process - Due process of law must be followed before eviction can occur - Defendants allowed to proceed with eviction in accordance with law. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff Cooperative-Society filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-Railways Department, challenging a notice to vacate received on 31.01.2012, which was found to be improperly served.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed, and the suit was disposed of, ensuring the plaintiff's right to due process in eviction matters.
Issues: Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of the Act and the validity of the notice served.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that eviction must follow due process as stipulated by law and noted the absence of proper notice as per the Act.
Result: Revision petition allowed, suit disposed of.
Order :
REKHA BORANA, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.02.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Merta in Civil Original Suit No.12/2012 whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of the defendants was rejected.
2. Vide the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC it was averred on behalf of the defendants that the suit in question was barred in terms of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1971’). However, the learned Trial Court rejected the application on the premise that there is no document available on record to suggest that the notice dated 31.01.2012 was served by the Estate Officer in terms of the Act of 1971 and any further action was taken by the Estate Officer in terms of the said Act.
3. The facts are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff Cooperative-Society with an averment that a premise was rented out to it by the defendant-Railways Department for running a Cooperative Store. However, notice dated 31.01.2012 was served on the Administrator/President of the Society by the Section Engineer and vide the same, the Society was called upon to vacate the premise. Being aggrieved of the said notice, the suit in question was filed.
4. An application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC was filed by the defendants with the averment as mentioned above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very inception, admits that notice dated 31.01.2012 was not in terms of Section 4 of the Act of 1971. The said notice was not issued by the Estate Officer and further the same did not provide for any time to the plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not be evicted.
6. He, therefore, candidly admits that the suit in question would not be barred in terms of the Act of 1971. He however, prays that the suit in question itself be disposed of while protecting the right of the plaintiff from being evicted without due process of law, while granting a liberty to the petitioner defendant to proceed in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1971.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents agrees to the above porposition and submits that the suit itself be disposed of in the above terms.
8. In view of the joint submission made at bar, the impugned order dated 16.02.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Civil Original Suit No.12/12 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division, Merta) is also disposed of with a direction that the plaintiff shall not be evicted/dispossessed by the defendants from the premise in question without adopting due process of law.
9. The petitioners defendants shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for eviction of the plaintiff, if they so desire.
10. Let the decree be drawn accordingly by the learned Trial Court.
11. With the above observations, the present revision petition is disposed of
12. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Eviction processes must adhere to due process of law, and improper notice renders a suit not barred under the Public Premises Act.
The court emphasized the necessity for the Appellate Authority to determine land classification and occupancy rights prior to issuing eviction orders.
The Estate Officer must determine the nature of the land and consider all representations before issuing an eviction order under the Public Premises Act.
The Estate Officer must determine if the land is public premises before eviction, considering all representations and documents submitted.
The importance of not usurping the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer in matters involving mixed elements of fact and law.
Eviction orders lacking reasons violate principles of natural justice; petitioners must be allowed to submit individual representations.
The petitioner should have preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 instead of approaching the court through a writ petition.
The suggestion to legislature is that a litigant who has succeeded must be compensated by one who has lost - Suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism that anyone who initiates and co....
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
