Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Gopal Prasad S/o Late Bhudhar Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
M/s Steel Authority of India Limited/Bokaro Steel Plant – Respondent
C.M.P. No. 44 of 2022
Decided On : 20-12-2023
Public Premises - Unauthorized Occupation - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, Section 7(1) and 7(2A) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, particularly focusing on the definition of unauthorized occupation, rent, residential accommodation occupation, and the power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises. The court emphasized the application of these provisions to determine unauthorized occupation and the imposition of penal rent and damages.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired employee, challenged the judgment of the Estate Officer and the District Judge-IV, Bokaro, regarding the payment of rent, electricity, and water charges for unauthorized occupation of a residential quarter. The petitioner argued that he was a valid allottee and not an unauthorized occupant, while the opposite party claimed that the petitioner's occupation became unauthorized after failing to vacate the quarter as per the House Building Advance Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's occupation did not constitute unauthorized occupation as per the House Allotment Rules of the opposite party-Company. The court also noted that the initiation of proceedings appeared to be mala-fide and unjust, especially after a specific order had been passed in favor of the petitioner in a previous writ petition. Therefore, the court set aside the judgments of the Estate Officer and the District Judge-IV, Bokaro, and ruled that the petitioner was not liable to pay any penal rent or damages.
Issues: The key issues revolved around whether the petitioner's occupation constituted unauthorized occupation, the applicability of the House Allotment Rules, and the mala-fide nature of the proceedings initiated by the opposite party-Company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and the House Allotment Rules of the opposite party-Company. The court emphasized that the petitioner's occupation did not amount to unauthorized occupation and that the proceedings appeared to be mala-fide and unjust.
Final Decision: The civil miscellaneous petition was allowed, and the judgments of the Estate Officer and the District Judge-IV, Bokaro, were set aside. The court ruled that the petitioner was not liable to pay any penal rent or damages.
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:
(b) For quashing of the judgment dated 20.02.2017 passed by the court of Sri P.S. Dwivedi, Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City, in Case No. A/E-23 of 2016, contained in Annexure-5, whereby and whereunder he has allowed the case of the opposite party-company filed under the provisions of Section 7(1) and 7(2A) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,05,576.42/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Five Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Six and Forty Two Paise) only, to the opposite party-Company against the rent, electricity and water charges, calculated from 01.12.1995 to 26.10.2009, ignoring the facts that the rent etc. have already been received by the opposite party-company from the petitioner up till 30.06.2009 through pay slip.
(c) For issuance of an appropriate writs, orders, directions to the opposite party authorities, directing them to pay amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only with interest since 03.11.2017 till the date of payment, which the opposite parties have retained with them in terms of oral order dated 03.11.2017 passed in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 544 of 2016 for the entire amount payable to the petitioner in form of security, subject to outcome of the appeal so filed by the petitioner bearing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11 of 2017.
(d) For issuance of a direction to the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent from the period of 01.07.2009 to 26.07.2009 @ 100/- per month and a further direction to the opposite parties to accept the same though the opposite parties have not demanded the same from the petitioner at any occasion.
Factual matrix
3. The petitioner joined the services of opposite party-Company on 11.12.1970 and he was allotted a residential Quarter No. 1029, Sector 4/F/C, in Bokaro Steel City and retired from his services on 30.06.2009. He handed over possession of said quarter to the Bokaro Steel Limited authorities on 26.10.2009. The opposite party-Company received rent and other charges of the said quarter from the petitioner through a pay slip till 30.06.2009. It is alleged that after retirement of the petitioner, the opposite party-Company paid the retiral dues to him withholding the amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- without giving any kind of information to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the company, but no satisfactory reply was given by the Management. Then, petitioner filed a W.P. (S) No. 6060/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi which was allowed vide order dated 20.05.2016 with direction to the opposite parties to release the amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum (Annexure-1 to the petition).
4. The opposite party-Company instead of complying the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2016 preferred an L.P.A. No. 279 of 2016 challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge. The petitioner also filed a Contempt Case (Civil) No. 544 of 2016 against the opposite party for non-compliance of order dated 20.05.2016. The said L.P.A. was sent for mediation before the Jharkhand Legal Services Authority wherein it was agreed that the opposite party-Company will withdraw the L.P.A. No. 279/2016 and will initiate required legal proceedings at the earliest. It was also settled that in terms of oral order dated 03.11.2017 in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 544 of 2016, Rs. 2,00,000/- will be retained by the opposite party s
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the Principles of Natural Justice in quasi-judicial proceedings, the lack of evidence of subletting of the actual governm....
The pending proceeding before the Estate Officer was the appropriate forum for adjudication of disputed factual issues.
Mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises.
The court upheld that eviction from a government company's property under the Public Premises Act is valid even when termination disputes are pending.
A former employee's unauthorized retention of government quarters beyond the permissible period constitutes unlawful occupation, justifying eviction and recovery of related charges from pension benef....
Eviction can be lawfully executed under public premises legislation when occupancy after a specified period lapses, regardless of retention requests from a former government employee, allowing for re....
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
