Back
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH
S. B. Patney – Appellant
Versus
III A. D. J. Meerut – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subodh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Present writ petition and the connected petitions have been filed against identical orders. In the present case, challenge has been raised to the order dated 14.05.2001 passed by the Estate Officer, Meerut Cantt. under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.P. Act'). Further, challenge has been raised to the order dated 14.05.2002 passed by the Appeal Court, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order. Thus, the petitioner has been declared an unauthorised occupant in the premise popularly known as Royal Hotel, Mall Road, Meerut Cantt (hereinafter referred to as the 'premise in question').
3. The petitioner claims execution of an Old Grant in favour of one Lieutenant Colonel A.M.L. Price who inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the premise in question, in the year 1976 that too prior to the cut-off date 05.07.1976 prescribed under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) A
The lack of a finding on the issue of the petitioner's tenancy at the time of resumption was crucial in determining the petitioner's status as an unauthorised occupant.
The court confirms that a retired employee is an unauthorized occupant if they do not vacate allotted premises post-retirement.
Tenancy rights under a Will cannot override specific contractual terms prohibiting assignment without consent, rendering unauthorized occupation invalid under the Public Premises Act.
The main legal point established is that the nature of the right claimed and the absence of mention of agreement termination in eviction notices determine the applicability of the Public Premises (Ev....
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.
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
