PYARELAL Vs. ESATAT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the are that breaches of the Terms and Conditions of Allotment had been alleged against the petitioner in terms of Revocation Notice issued on 5-6th January, 1986. Eventually, an order of Ejectment came to be passed on 8.11.1988 which was assailed before Shri. M.S.Rohila, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer for recording of evidence.

(2.) Photocopies of Notices issued in August, 1987 have been handed over for perusal of the Court, which mention a totally different reason for the eviction. You have subject the shop to one Shri Vinod Kumar Bajaj". The Petitioner's case is that this notice was not served and that there is no judicial finding on this point. 'After the matter had been remanded in terms of the Judgment dated 13.11.1990 of shri. M.S.Rohila, Additional District Judge, Delhi an Ejectment Order was passed on 27.12.1991. This does not either state that the Terms and Conditions of Allotment have been violated by the petitioner or that the Petitioner had sublet the shop to Shri Vinod Kumar Bajaj. It is this order that we are concerned with in this Writ Petition. This Order was assailed before the Additional District Judge. In the impugned Judgement dated 21.10.2005 it has been specifically recorded that the petitioner was aggrieved with the fact that the Revocation Notice dated 5-6.1.1988 was not served. There is apparent confusion upon which Notice the Respondents are proceedings. The issuance of notice under Sections 4 is the springboard for any action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It must be proved. This is the view taken by the Division Bench in Dr. Yash Paul Gupta Vs. Dr. S.S.Anand, AIR 1980 Jammu and Kashmir 16: and also by P.K.Bahri, J in Shri Bhagat Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 1988 Delhi 174. In Sudhir Goel Vs. MCD, 2004 IV AD (DELHI) 493: 112 (2004) DLT 249 and in Ganeshi Bai (Smt.) Vs. Union of India, 2005 VI AD (DELHI) 536, I have expressed the opinion that the Show Cause Notice under section 4 of the Act must conform strictly with the status.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on the decision of my learned Brother, Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. in CW No. 7771/2002 titled Ex. Havaldar Kailash Singh Vs. Union of India decided on 02.09.2003 in which it has been clarified that the grounds of eviction must be clearly stated and the eviction order must be based on those grounds. Matter requires consideration. The ejectment Order does not syncronize with the grounds in the alleged Show Cause Notice. Rule CM.No. 14181/2005