The main legal point established in the judgment is that eviction from public premises must follow the due process of law as prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a declaration that his eviction from the shop-cum-residential premises bearing No. 5 situated at Saddar Bazar, Badami Bagh Cantonment, Srinagar is illegal, arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees. A further direction asking the respondents to restore the aforesaid premises to the petitioner has also been sought. Several other reliefs have also been prayed for in the writ petition including the one regarding lodging of FIR against the responsible persons for committing criminal trespass.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner passed away and his legal heirs were brought on record in terms of order dated 12.12.2007 passed by this Court.

3. As per the case of the petitioner, he was allotted shop-cum-residential premises bearing No. 5 by the respondent-cantonment board and he was enjoying the use and occupation of the said premises for about five decades on the mutually agreed terms and conditions including payment of rental etc. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner alongwith his family has been residing in the said premises and carrying on trade and business from there. It is also averred that the petitioner has been paying rentals as per the agreed terms.

4. According to the petitioner, due to his failing health, he executed attorney in favour of his sons, namely, Mr. V.K. Sharma and Mr. Vijay Sharma for the purpose of running the business from the premises in question. It has been stated that when respondent No. 4 took over as Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, he unilaterally enhanced the rentals by 150% to 600%. This was protested by the Traders and Merchants Association, Saddar Bazar, Badami Bagh Cantt. Srinagar through its President, Vijay Sharma, who happens to be the son of the petitioner and writ petition bearing OWP No. 1129/1997 came to be filed by the association. It is alleged that even after passing of a status quo order by this Court, respondent No. 4 persisted with the coercive measures against the members of the association including the petitioner.

5. It is further alleged that after the onset of militancy, when for security reasons, entry/security passes became mandatory, respondent No. 4 resorted to withholding of renewal of security passes so as to force the members of the association to deposit the rentals at the enhanced rates despite order of status quo passed by the this Court. Even the supply of the electric energy to the entire area constituting Saddar Bazar market, B. B. Cantt, Srinagar was disconnected.

6. The above actions of the respondents are stated to have compelled the members of the market association to file another writ petition bearing OWP No. 44/1998 before this Court, in which certain directions were issued to the respondent No. 4 for completing the process of renewal of security/entry passes within a week’s time. The said order, according to the petitioner, was not complied with by respondent No. 4, as a result of which, a contempt petition was filed before this Court. It has been further submitted that because of withholding renewal of security/entry passes by respondent No. 4, the entry and exit of the petitioner and his family members to their premises located at B.B. Cantt. Srinagar became difficult.

7. On 08.05.1998 and 25.08.1998, notices are stated to have been issued by the respondent No. 4 to the petitioner to appear in person for renewal of the licence but because of non-availability of the security pass to the attorney holder of the petitioner, the same could not be done and according to the petitioner, difficulty in this regard was communicated to the respondent No. 4 vide communications dated 12.05.1998, 18.05.1998 and 26.05.1998. It has been alleged by the petitioner that in the wee hours of 26.12.1998, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 acting under the direction of respondent No. 3 & 4 trespassed in the premises No