Back
Munna Lal – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.6 and 7.
2. Since the respondent no.5 is the Estate Officer i.e. Quasi-Judicial Authority, whose order has been challenged in this petition, there is no need to issue notice to the respondent no.5.
3. This petition has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 19 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.194 of 2019 arising out of order passed by the Estate Officer c/o Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Lucknow, dated 30.07.2019.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Shop No.1, Block A, Nehru Road Shopping Complex, Sadar Bazar, Cantt Lucknow, was leased out to one Shri Munna Lal petitioner no.1 in an public auction held on 22.07.1981, for a monthly rent which was deposited by the lessee on 31.12.1981, in pursuance of sanction granted on 07.11.1981 by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command, Lucknow. The lease deed was signed on 16.03.1983. The original all
Point of Law : Document sought to be brought on record have been obtained by the appellant under Right to Information Act only in 2019.
High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 requires proving gross illegality or irregularity for intervention; cancellation of lease upheld based on violations of lease conditions.
Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to reviewing the legality of process rather than re-evaluating facts. Eviction upheld for breaches of lease conditions.
The eviction under the Public Premises Act was upheld as lawful, with sufficient notice and adherence to due process, and claims of bias against the Estate Officer were rejected.
The court emphasized that eviction under the Public Premises Act requires subjective satisfaction of unauthorized occupation, ensuring fairness in administrative actions.
The necessity for eviction must be justified in addition to establishing unauthorized occupation under the Public Premises Act, as reaffirmed by prior judicial interpretations.
A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard t....
PP Act prevails over state rent acts for evicting unauthorized occupants from public premises, including pre-existing tenancies post-acquisition; unauthorized assignment, decades-long rent default, a....
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
