IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the procedural requirements for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, must be strictly followed, including the issuance of a notice under Section 4, and that failure to do so invalidates the eviction order.

ORDER :

J. Sathya Narayana Prasad, J.

[COMMON PRAYER: These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.Nos.17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of 2011, dated 30.10.2017 on the file of the District Judge and Appellate Authority of the Nilgiris, at Udhagamandalm and consequentially allow the appeal by setting aside the order of eviction passed by the second respondent.]

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.Nos.17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of 2011 dated 30.10.2017 passed by the District Judge and Appellate Authority of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the second respondent, Brigadier/Commandant, The Madras Regimental Centre, Wellington, The Nilgiris.

2. The revision petitioners are the appellants in the appeal in C.M.A.No.17 of 2011 & Etc Batch. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners are tenants under the Ratan Tata Officers' Holiday Home living from the date of their fore-fathers/ancestors as their employees. Thereafter, the property was taken over by the first respondent and vested with the Madras Regimental Centre, Willington, The Nilgiris and the revision petitioners became tenants and was paying monthly rents. He further submitted that the earlier owner of Ratan Tata Officers' Holiday Home has collected the rents and issued the receipts. Therefore, the revision petitioners are neither an illegal occupants nor an encroachers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the second respondent viz., Brigadier/Commandant, the Madras Regimental Centre, Willington, The Nilgiris is not an Estate Officer appointed by the first respondent to initiate any proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 and there is no documents to prove that the second respondent herein is the Estate Officer.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the guidelines framed by the Government was not followed by the second respondent, while passing the order of eviction and the show cause notice under Section 4 as contemplated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 has to be issued to the petitioners before passing the order of eviction, however, the same has not been issued and only a legal notice had been issued by the advocate on behalf of the second respondent and this cannot be construed as show cause notice under Section 4 of The Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that without following the procedures contemplated under the aforesaid Act, the second respondent has conducted the enquiry and passed the order of eviction against the revision petitioners. The second respondent had not recorded the evidence and marked the documents produced by the revision petitioners and the eviction order passed by the second respondent i.e., Brigadier/Commandant is a non-speaking order. Moreover, the second respondent, who is a person in management of the premises has acted as an Estate Officer and he is not the Estate Officer appointed by the first respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the notice under Section 4 of the Act was not scrupulously followed by the second respondent before passing the order of eviction. The legal notice dated 30.03.2010 issued by the counsel for the second respondent in the nature of a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, in which it is stated that the p