Delay in court proceedings may bar relief if no satisfactory explanation is provided, especially under eviction laws.

(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 11931 of 2024. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, which challenged the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2004 passed by the jurisdictional District Court, confirming the order of eviction issued by the fourth respondent directing the appellant’s eviction from the subject property.

2. The appellant had entered into a purchase agreement with the fourth respondent in respect of the subject property. However, owing to the appellant’s default in payment of the agreed consideration, the said agreement came to be cancelled by the fourth respondent. Despite such cancellation, the appellant continued to occupy the property, which was classified as public premises, thereby rendering such occupation unauthorised within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 (hereinafter, “the Act”). Consequently, eviction proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the Act.

3. The initial order of eviction passed by the fourth respondent was challenged before the jurisdictional District Court, which set aside the same and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, observing that certain objections raised by the appellant had not been duly addressed. Upon such remand, the fourth respondent reconsidered the matter and, by order dated 14.02.1992, again directed eviction of the appellant from the subject property.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Court, which, by judgment and decree dated 03.09.2004, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction. Challenging the said decree, the appellant filed W.P. No. 11931 of 2024 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the twin grounds of delay and laches, noting that the appellant had approached this Court after an inordinate delay of nearly two decades from the date of the decree. The learned Judge further observed that the appellant had outstanding dues under a Money Market Account amounting to Rs. 2,46,984.31, out of which Rs. 54,994.68 represented principal dues, and the remaining Rs. 1,91,989.66 had been waived towards interest and other charges. Aggrieved by such findings and dismissal, the present writ appeal has been filed.

6. The appellant, appearing party-in-person, contended that the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2004 was obtained by the fourth respondent by practising fraud upon the court, rendering the same a nullity in law and non-est in the eyes of law. It was further submitted that the order of eviction passed by the fourth respondent was contrary to the spirit of the remand order dated

24.10.1991 of the District Court, inasmuch as the respondent failed to comply with the directions contained therein while reconsidering the matter.

7. The appellant also urged that the learned Single Judge had failed to properly appreciate these contentions and that the delay in approaching the Court ought to have been condoned, considering the alleged fraud vitiating the earlier proceedings.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant-party-

in-person and perused the materials available on record.

9. It is an undisputed fact that the District Court, by judgment and decree dated 03.09.2004, confirmed the order of eviction dated 14.02.1992 passed by the Estate Officer, holding that the appellant’s occupation of the subject proper