E-mail notice not permitted under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Possession taken beyond the specified period from the date of service through e-mail is illegal. High-handed dispossession while a stay application is pending is not justified.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in its impugned order in public notice vide undated, as per the order of the Court of estates officer madras circle, Chennai vide order no.EO/M/98/02/MC dated 01.06.2023 and quash the same.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent under Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

2. By consent of all counsels, the Main Writ Petition itself is taken for disposal.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per the impugned order, 15 days time was granted, from the date of receipt of that order, to vacate the premises. The said impugned order was received by the petitioner only on 19.06.2023. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, time for eviction as per the impugned order started from 19.06.2023 and expired on 04.07.2023. While so, the respondents 1 and 2 hastely and without adhering to the provisions of law tried to vacate the petitioner from its legal possession of the property.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 did not dispute that the order was passed on 01.06.2023 with a direction to evict within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The respondent disputed the contention of the petitioner that he received a copy of the order only on 19.06.2023. According to the respondents the order was communicated to the petitioner vide e-mail dated 16.06.2023 and exparte possession was taken on 03.07.2023. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner''s writ petition was not maintainable as the writ petitioner had availed the alternative statutory remedy by filing an appeal in C.M.A.No.5 of 2023 before the 3rd respondent herein, challenging the impugned order. The respondents counsel further submitted that the I.A.No.2 of 2023 filed for stay is listed for hearing on 06.07.2023.

5. We have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed before us.

6. It is seen that the impugned order was passed on 01.06.2023. According to the petitioner, as per postal endorsement he had received the same on 19.06.2023. Therefore time for eviction as per impugned order would fall on 04.07.2023. Even before the time given for eviction had lapsed, the respondents in a high handed manner sought to evict the petitioner and hence the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition eventhough he had availed the alternate remedy under the statute. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the possession was taken on 03.07.2023, which was well beyond the period of 15 days from the date of e-mail sent by the respondents. It is to be seen if notice through e-mail is valid notice.

7. It is to be noted here that Rule 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, provides for the Manner of service of notices and orders. The rule provides that, the service shall be made as follows:

“ Served by delivering, or tendering a copy of the notice or order, as the case may be, to the person for whom it is intended or to any adult member of his family, or by sending it by registered post acknowledgment due in a letter addressed to that person at his usual or last-known place of residence or business.

(2) Where the copy of [the notice or the order, as the case may be] under sub-rule (1) is delivered or tendered the signature of the person to whom the copy is so delivered or tendered should be obtained in token of acknowledgment of the service.”

From a reading of the rule, it is clear that e-mail notice is not permitted. In this context the oft quoted Judgment of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad Vs. Emperor is noteworthy. It is stated in the said Judgment as follows:

“The rule which applies is a different and not less w