Advocates:
['', 'ALOK MAHRA', 'BHAGWAT MAHRA', '', 'SIDDHARTHA BIST', 'LALIT SHARMA', 'L P NAITHANI', '', 'ANANT KUMAR AGARWAL', 'SUDHIR KUMAR']

Reserved Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 616 of 2005 (M/S)

Life Insurance Corporation of India

…….

Petitioner

Versus

Diljit Singh Bindra

…….

Respondent

Mr. B.C. Pande, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Advocate for

the petitioner LIC.

Mr. L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for

the respondent.

List of cases referred:

1.

(2014) 4 SCC 657, Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd.

2.

(2011) 8 SCC 670, State of Uttaranchal and another vs. Sunil

Kumar Vaish and others

3.

(1994) Supp.3 SCC 694, Jiwan Dass vs Life Insurance

Corporation.

4.

AIR 1991 SC 855, Ashoka Marketing Ltd. vs Punjab National

Bank.

5.

(1980) 4 SCC 435, M/s Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs

Life Insurance Corporation of India and another

6.

AIR 1974 SC 396, Qudrat Ullah vs Municipal Board, Bareilly

7.

Mrs. Rani Sevakram (since deceased) by heirs & LRs vs The

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others, decided on 28.02.2017

Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition

assailing the order dated 29.03.2005, passed by learned District

Judge, Dehradun in P.P. Appeal no. 76 of 2004, Diljit Singh vs

Life Insurance Corporation of India and another, whereby the

said appeal was allowed and the order dated 07.06.2004, passed

by the Estate Officer in case no. M-4 of 1986, LIC vs Diljit

Singh Bindra, was set aside.

2)

Briefly put, facts of the case are that Life Insurance

Corporation of India (here-in-after referred to as LIC) is the

owner of the suit property viz. shop no. 2, Himalaya House,

2

The Mall, Mussoorie. The City Magistrate / Rent Control and

Eviction Officer allotted the suit property in favour of the

respondent and inducted the respondent as tenant over said

property, without given an opportunity to the petitioner.

Respondent became the tenant of said shop at a rent of

Rs.703.12 per annum. The petitioner issued notice to the

respondent to pay rent, but for a long time the rent was not paid.

However, the City Magistrate / Rent Control and Eviction

Officer had no authority to allot the premises in question to the

respondent, but as this property was allotted and possession was

delivered to the respondent, the petitioner admitted the

respondent as tenant and started receiving the rent from him.

Subsequently, the respondent did not pay the rent, despite

several notices issue to him. Then, petitioner was constrained

to terminate the tenancy of the respondent by issuing notice

dated 30.08.1993 and asked him to vacate the premises in

question and handover the peaceful and vacant possession of

the same to the petitioner. Respondent neither paid the rent nor

handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises

in question to the petitioner. Having considered the possession

of the respondent unauthorized, the petitioner filed an

application on 04.02.1986 before the Estate Officer to initiate

proceedings under Section 5 and 7 of the Public Premises

(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘Act no. 40 of 1971’).

3)

Admittedly, LIC is owner and landlord of the shop

in question which is a public premises within the meaning of

Section 2(e) of the Act no. 40 of 1971.

4)

Respondent was tenant of the shop no. 2 at an

agreed rent of Rs. 703.12 Paise (including water tax @

Rs.78.12 Paise) per annum. The tenancy of the respondent was

3

terminated by legal notice dated 30.08.1993. The respondent

did not vacate the premises even after expiry of notice period

and, as such, after expiry of notice period, the respondent has

become unauthorised occupant of Public Premises. LIC filed

the case before the Estate Officer seeking following reliefs:

1)

Eviction of the respondent from the public premises as

described in schedul