Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
Prithvi Raj – Petitioner
Versus
Cantonment Board Dalhousie Cantt. and another – Respondents
CMPMO No.79 of 2016
Decided on : 10-05-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Angrej Kapoor, Advocate.
Unauthorized possession cannot lead to eviction without due process of law.
Headnote:
Possession - Ejectment Proceedings - The court held that a person in unauthorized possession of any property cannot be evicted except through due process of law. The Public Premises Act provides the machinery for dispossessing the petitioner-plaintiff from the shop in question.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-plaintiff claimed possession of a shop and filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent unlawful dispossession by the defendant-Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner-plaintiff was in possession of the shop and acknowledged the principle that unauthorized possession cannot lead to eviction without due process of law. The court directed the defendants not to dispossess the petitioner-plaintiff except through due process of law.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner-plaintiff could be evicted from the shop without following due process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that unauthorized possession cannot lead to eviction without due process of law and cited the Public Premises Act as the legal framework for dispossessing the petitioner-plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court directed the defendants not to dispossess the petitioner-plaintiff from the shop except through due process of law.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
Petitioner is plaintiff in the trial Court. He claims himself to be in possession of shop No.1, Cantt. Fund Market, Tagore Chowk, Dalhousie, District Chamba He has received notice dated 27.2.2015 whereby the Chief Executive Officer of Dalhousie Cantt. has called upon him to deposit due and admissible professional charges and water charges amounting to Rs.12,924/- within seven days and also to vacate the shop in question so that the same can be auctioned as per the decision taken the Cantonment Board.
2. The complaint is that immediately after the notice aforesaid served upon the petitioner-plaintiff, the respondent-defendant-Board started threatening through its agents and servants to dispossess him from the shop in question forcibly. The apprehension of the petitioner-plaintiff, therefore, is that he is likely to be evicted from the shop in question without following the due process of law. He, therefore, has filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents-defendants through their agents and employees from dispossessing him unlawfully from the shop in question.
3. Petitioner-plaintiff, admittedly, is in possession of the shop in question. As per the settled legal principles, a person in unauthorized possession of any property and for that matter even a tres-passer cannot be evicted there from except for observance of the due process of law.
4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General is fair enough while submitting that the petitioner-plaintiff will be evicted from the shop in question on observance of due process of law.
5. The machinery to dispossess the petitioner-plaintiff from the shop in question is provided under the Public Premises Act. The defendant-Board, therefore, can initiate ejectment proceedings against him under the provisions of the Act ibid. Therefore, the suit itself will stand disposed of with a direction to the respondents-defendants not to dispossess the petitioner-plaintiff from the shop in question except for the due process of law. This petition and the suit both stand disposed of accordingly. Learned trial Court to pass a formal decree in the suit on receipt of the copy of this judgment.
An authenticated copy to learned trial Court for compliance and being taken on record.
