Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Mian Jalal-ud-Din,I.K. Kotwal, JJ.
Yash Paul Gupta (Dr.) - Appellant
Versus
S.S. Anand (Dr.) & Ors. - Respondent
LPA No. 13/1976
Decided On : 19 January, 1979
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1959 - SECTIONS 4 AND 5 - EVICTION - NOTICE - GROUNDS - SPECIFICATION - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - MALA FIDES.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a physician specialist, was allotted Government Hospital Quarter No. 3, situate at Ajayib Ghar, Jammu, on 10th May, 1973. He was transferred to Government Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, and was called upon to vacate the premises allotted to him. A notice under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1959, (hereinafter the Eviction Act) was issued to him, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be evicted from the said premises. The appellant appeared before the Estates Officer and was given time for filing objections. He made an application that he was not an unauthorised occupant and sought further time to file objections, at the same time making a prayer that in order to enable him to give an effective reply to the show cause notice, a file mentioned in the application may be got summoned. The Estates Officer, however, treated this application as written objections, and fixed a date for hearing, at the same time summoning some record from the SMGS Hospital, Jammu. On the date of hearing, the Estates Officer held that the appellant was an unauthorised occupant of the premises and passed an order of his eviction in terms of Section 5 of the Eviction Act. The appellant went in appeal to District Judge, Jammu, but his appeal was dismissed. He challenged both the orders, i.e. of the Estates Officer and the District Judge, as well as Notice No: MB-Misc.-GM/74 (i) dated 11-7-1974 issued to him by respondent No: 1 for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him, in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
1. The notice issued to the appellant under Section 4 of the Eviction Act did not specify the grounds on which the order of eviction was proposed to be made, as required by Section 4(2)(a) of the Act. This omission rendered the notice invalid. 2. The appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the eviction order was passed, as required by Section 5 of the Eviction Act. The Estates Officer treated the appellant's application for time to file objections as written objections and closed his right to file any further objections. He also did not hear the appellant or his counsel before passing the eviction order. 3. The ground of mala fides alleged by the appellant was not proved. The allegations of mala fides were vague and indefinite, and the appellant did not provide any specific reasons for the alleged malice.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of eviction passed against the appellant is bad in law as there has been a violation of the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Eviction Act? 2. Whether the aforesaid order has been passed mala fide?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 4(2)(a) of the Eviction Act mandates the Estates Officer to specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made in the notice issued to the person in unauthorised occupation of public premises. This is a mandatory requirement and not merely directory in character. Failure to specify the grounds in the notice renders the notice invalid. 2. Section 5 of the Eviction Act casts an obligation on the Estates Officer to give the occupant of the public premises a reasonable opportunity of producing evidence as well as of being heard before any order is passed against him. This opportunity has to be reasonable and not merely illusory. 3. The plea of mala fides must be supported by specific pleadings. Vague and indefinite allegations of mala fides are not sufficient to establish the ground.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the following were quashed by a writ of certiorari: (a) notice No: ME-MISC-GN/74 (i) dated 11-7-1974 issued by respondent No: 1; (b) order of eviction dated 15-9-1975 passed by respondent No: 4 against the appellant; and (c) order dated 1-11-1975 passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing the appellants appeal against the order of respondent No: 4 dated 15-9-1975.
1. This appeal under the Letters Patent is directed against an order of a learned Judge of this Court, dismissing the appellants writ petition, and upholding the order passed against him by the Estates Officer, evicting him from a public premises.
2. Put briefly, the facts leading to this appeal are as follows:
The petitioner is an A-grade Physician specialist in the department of Health and Family Planning. While posted at SMGS Hospital, Jammu, he was allotted Government Hospital Quarter No . 3, situate at Ajayib Ghar, Jammu, on 10th May, 1973. A post of Professor of Medicine having fallen vacant in the Government Medical College, Jammu, seven candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, out of whom the appellant was also one. The appellant, according to the respondents, not having been selected for the post was transferred to Government Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, and was also called upon to vacate the premises allotted to him which he was not entitled to retain ; the SMGS Hospital being attached to the Government Medical College, Jammu. The petitioner, having failed to vacate the premises, a notice under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1959, (hereinafter the Eviction Act) was issued to him, calling upon him to show cause on or before 26th August, 1975, as to why he should not be evicted from the said premises. The appellant appeared before the Estates Officer on 26th August, 1975 and was given time for filing objections by or on 1st Sept. 1975. On 1st of September, 1975, however, he made an application that he was not an unauthorised occupant and sought further time to file objections, at the same time making a prayer that in order to enable him to give an effective reply to the show cause notice, a file mentioned in the application may be got summoned. The Estates Officer, however, treated this application as written objections, and fixed 15th September, 1975 as the date for hearing, at the same time summoning some record from the SMGS Hospital, Jammu. On 15th September, 1975, the Estates Officer on perusal of the file summoned, held that the allotment of the appellant consequent upon his transfer from SMGS Hospital to Government Hospital, Gandhinagar, vide Government Order No: 28-MD dated 26-1-1974, having been cancelled by the Superintendent SMGS Hospital Jammu, on 19-2-1974, he was an unauthorised occupant of the premises. He, therefore, passed an order of his eviction in terms of Section 5 of the Eviction Act. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant went in appeal to District Judge, Jammu, but there too he could not succeed and his appeal was dismissed. He, therefore, challenged both the orders, i.e. of the Estates Officer, respondent No. 4, and the District Judge, respondent No : 3, as well as Notice No: MB-Misc.-GM/74 (i) dated 11-7-1974 issued to him by respondent No: 1 for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him, in a writ petition. Whereas he challenged the notice issued by respondent No: 1 on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and mala fide, he challenged the eviction order on two grounds. One, that it was against the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Eviction Act, and two, that it was actuated by malice. The learned Single Judge, who heard the petition dismissed the same by holding that no mala fides were established as the allegations of mala fides were vague and indefinite, and that no infraction of Sections 4 and 5 of the Eviction Act was proved. No finding one way or the other was, however, given by him in regard to the notice issued by respondent No: 1. This appeal is directed against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, which came to be passed on 20-2-1976.
3. Before this appeal could be taken up for final arguments, an application was made by the appellant that the respondents be directed to produce in the court the minutes of the Selection Committee which had interviewed the cand
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
