Back
1994 Supreme(Ori) 139
High Court Of Orissa
G. B. Pattanaik , R. K. PATRA
GOURA MOHAN GIRI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
ORIGINAL JURDN. CASE 4488 Of 1991
Decided On : 09/16/1994
B.Routray, K.B.KAR, R.K.MOHAPATRA, S.K.Nayak, S.S.SWAIN, U.K.Samal
The occupation of public premises without authority is unauthorized and the Estate Officer appointed by the Central Government has the jurisdiction to deal with the eviction proceeding.
Headnote:
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 2(E), 2(G), 3 - [SUMMARY] The court held that the quarters in question were 'public premises' as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and the occupation of the quarters by the petitioner after his retirement was unauthorized as per Section 2(g). The court further held that the Estate Officer had the jurisdiction to deal with the eviction proceeding as he was appointed by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired employee of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), challenged the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer and affirmed by the District Judge under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioner argued that the quarters in question were not public premises, the Estate Officer lacked jurisdiction, and his wife, also an employee of SAIL, was entitled to allotment of the quarters after his retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the quarters were public premises as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and the petitioner's occupation after retirement was unauthorized under Section 2(g). The court also held that the Estate Officer had the jurisdiction to deal with the eviction proceeding as he was appointed by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the quarters in question were public premises as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act? 2. Whether the petitioner's occupation of the quarters after retirement was unauthorized under Section 2(g) of the Act? 3. Whether the Estate Officer had the jurisdiction to deal with the eviction proceeding?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the quarters were public premises as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act because they belonged to SAIL, a Government Company. 2. The court held that the petitioner's occupation of the quarters after retirement was unauthorized under Section 2(g) of the Act because he continued to occupy the premises without authority after the expiry of the grace period granted to him. 3. The court held that the Estate Officer had the jurisdiction to deal with the eviction proceeding because he was appointed by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the eviction order was valid and the petitioners were bound to vacate the premises.
R. K. PATRA, J.
( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1. In this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, they challenge the legality of the eviction order at Annexure 6 passed by the Estate Officer, opposite party No. 3 affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, opposite party No. 4 as per the order at Annexure 7.
( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 while in employment was permitted by his employer Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant to occupy quarters No. A/ 94-JBR (previous No. Qr. 34, Type-VIII) in Sector 5, Rourkela. He came to occupy the said quarters from 8-9-1959. After his retirement from service on 31-8-1984, he was permitted to occupy it for a grace period of two months and after expiry of the said two months, permission granted to occupy the quarters was revoked. As he did not vacate, the employer directed him to vacate the premises by registered notice dt. 2-1-1985 which did not yield any result. The employer consequently treated petitioner No. 1 as an unauthorised occupant with effect from 31-10-1984 and filed P. P. Case No. 8085 of 1986 under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Estate Officer, opposite party No. 3 for eviction. Petitioner No. 2 was subsequently added as opposite party No. 2 in the said eviction case on her own prayer Petitioner No. 1 submitted his cause resisting the eviction on the grounds (i) the quarters in question is not a public premises, (ii) the Estate Officer opposite party No. 3 is not competent to deal with the matter in absence of valid appointment by the appropriate authority, (iii) his wife, petitioner No. 2 also being an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited was entitled to allotment of the said quarters after his retirement, and (iv) dependants of many retired employees who are in employment were given the benefit of occupying the same quarters. Petitioner No. 2 in her separate cause contended that she being an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited shall be deemed to be an allottee of the quarters in question by virtue of her eligibility and is entitled for regularisation of the quarters in her favour.
( 3 ) THE Estate Officer by his order dt. 7-12-1989 as per Annexure 6 overruled the objections raised by the petitioners and held that the occupation of the quarters by petitioner No. 1 after his retirement is without any authority and in absence of any allotment in favour of petitioner No. 2 in respect of the quarters in question, she has also no case. Accordingly, he directed eviction. Against the said order, petitioners preferred P. P. Appeal No. 13 of 1989 before the District Judge, Sundargarh who after hearing has dismissed the appeal.
( 4 ) PETITIONER No. 1 Goura Mohan Giri argued the matter in person. We heard him at length. Counsel for the Steel Authority of India Limited was also heard.
( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that petitioner No. 1 on being allotted the quarters in question came to occupy it on 8-5-1959. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31-8-1984. After allowing the grace period of two months for occupation following his superannuation, permission granted for occupation was revoked with effect from 31-10-1984. Despite service of notice asking him to vacate the quarters, he did not vacate and continued to occupy the same.
( 6 ) SECTION 2 (e) of the Act defines 'public premises'. It reads, so far as relevant, as follows: ";2. (e): ";public premises"; means- (1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes. . . . . . . . . (2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of,- (i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), in which not less than fiftyzone per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government or any company which i
