Back
Himachal Pradesh High Court
R. S. PATHAK,D. B. LAL,C. R. THAKUR
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
C. Baljee - Respondent
Decided On : 01/17/1973
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1958 - Section 5(1), 7(2) - PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) AMENDMENT ACT, 1968 - Section 10-E - PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - Sections 11, 15, 19, 20 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 14, 226 - Retrospective operation of the 1971 Act - Effect on pending proceedings and orders passed under the 1958 Act - Validity of eviction order passed by Estate Officer and appellate order quashing it - Scope of judicial review under Article 226.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India challenged an order of the District Judge, Simla, as Appellate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, quashing an order of the Estate Officer for eviction of the respondent. The respondent was in occupation of a portion of the Grand Hotel Simla, which belonged to the Government of India, under a lease that expired on April 14, 1968. The Government decided not to renew the lease and directed the respondent to vacate the premises. The respondent refused to vacate and filed a suit for injunction. The Government replied denying the alleged assurance and called on the respondent to vacate the property. The respondent did not vacate the premises and the Estate Officer issued a notice under Section 4(1) of the 1958 Act. After a hearing, the Estate Officer ordered the respondent to vacate the premises within 30 days. The respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge, who allowed the appeal on the sole ground that the Act was ultra vires. The Union of India filed a writ petition challenging the appellate order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the 1971 Act was a constitutionally valid piece of legislation and that it had the effect of validating the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the 1958 Act. The Court further held that the appellate order quashing the eviction order was incorrect and liable to be quashed. The Court also held that the order of the Appellate Officer was amenable to correction by a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was a constitutionally valid piece of legislation? 2. Whether the 1971 Act had the effect of validating the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the 1958 Act? 3. Whether the appellate order quashing the eviction order was incorrect and liable to be quashed? 4. Whether the order of the Appellate Officer was amenable to correction by a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the 1971 Act was a constitutionally valid piece of legislation because it removed the vice of discrimination that was present in the 1958 Act. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. The Military Estate Officer, where it was held that the 1971 Act had achieved the object of validating actions under the 1958 Act. 2. The Court held that the 1971 Act had the effect of validating the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the 1958 Act because Section 20 of the 1971 Act provided that anything done or any action taken under the 1958 Act would be deemed to be as valid and effective as if it was done or taken under the 1971 Act. 3. The Court held that the appellate order quashing the eviction order was incorrect and liable to be quashed because the appellate officer had erred in holding that the eviction order was ultra vires. The Court held that the 1971 Act had the effect of validating the eviction order and, therefore, the ground upon which the appellate officer had allowed the appeal did not survive. 4. The Court held that the order of the Appellate Officer was amenable to correction by a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution because the appellate officer had committed a manifest error of law in holding that the eviction order was invalid.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the appellate order, and directed the Appellate Officer to dispose of the appeal afresh.
R. S. PATHAK, C. J. :- The Union of India is aggrieved by an order of the District Judge, Simla, as Appellate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, quashing an order of the Estate Officer for eviction of the respondent, Shri C. Baljee.
2. The Grand Hotel Simla, belongs to the Government of India. On April 15, 1965, the Government executed a lease in favour of Messrs Baljee in respect of a portion of the Grand Hotel for three years ending April 14, 1968 on an annual rent of Rs. 49,812/- payable monthly. There was a clause in the lease that it could be renewed at the option of the Government, upon the expiry of the period of three years, On January 9/12, 1968 the Government of India wrote to the lessee that it had decided not to renew the lease and that, therefore, vacant possession should be handed over upon its expiry. The lessee served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the Central Government protesting against the direction to vacate the premises and relied upon an alleged assurance that the tenancy would not be terminated. The notice warned that a suit for injunction would be filed in case any attempt was made at eviction or at letting out the premises to another. The Government of India replied on April 3, 1968 denying the alleged assurance and it again called on the lessee to vacate the leased property. It appears that the lessee did not "deliver possession but continued to occupy the property. On June 7, 1968, the Estate Officer, constituted by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, issued a notice under Section 4(1) of that Act. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced by the parties the Estate Officer made an order dated March 16, 1970 holding that the lessee had failed to prove any authority to continue in occupation of the premises after April 14, 1968, and that the lessee and all other persons concerned were, therefore, in unauthorised occupation of the premises and were liable to eviction according to law. On March 25, 1970, the Estate Officer passed a formal order under S. 5(1) of the aforesaid Act directing Shri C. Baljee and all other persons in occupation to vacate the premises within 30 days of publication of the order. An appeal was filed by Shri C. Baljee before the District Judge Simla, who, by virtue of Section 9 of the Act is constituted an Appellate Officer. The appeal was allowed by an order dated November 10, 1970, on the sole ground that the Act was ultra vires. That appellate order has been challenged by the present writ petition.
3. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, was enacted by Parliament, as the title shows, to provide for the eviction, of unauthorised occupants from public premises. Section 5(1) empowered the Estate Officer, appointed under Section 3 of the Act to make an order of eviction on finding that a person was in unauthorised occupation of the premises. In the event of the person refusing or failing to comply with the order of eviction the Estate Officer was authorised by Section 5(2) of the Act to evict that person from and take possession of the public premises and for that purpose to use such force as would be necessary. Section 7 of the Act empowered the Estate Officer to require such person to pay the arrears of rent payable in respect of the public premises; and also to assess the damages on account of use
and occupation of such premises for the period of occupation thereafter. In case such person refused or failed to pay the arrears of rent or the damages the Estate Officer was empowered to issue a certificate to the Collector who would proceed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue.
4. In Rajendra Prasad Singh v. Union of India AIR 1968 Cal 560 (FB), a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the Act permitted the Government, in the exercise of an unguided discretion, to adopt either of two alternative remed
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
