A.K.MEHROTRA Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner, Sri R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State and Sri D. Barthwal, Advocate for respondent no.2.

(2.) UNDER challenge before this Court are orders dated 3.5.2007 passed by the prescribed authority under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Eviction Act”) holding petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant of a public premises and thereby ordering his eviction and the order dated 26.8.2010 of the learned District Judge, Dehradun passed in statutory appeal of the petitioner by which the order of the prescribed authority has been upheld, and the appeal dismissed. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner was, however, transferred from Mussoorie to Nainital in the year 1991, or nearabout. As a public servant and as a gentleman, he was required to vacate the premises and hand it over to Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie or to the next incumbent, who joined Mussoorie as its Medical Health Officer. The petitioner, however, refused to do so. When pressure was built upon him to vacate the premises, he filed a suit for permanent injunction, being Suit No. 827 of 2001 Dr. Arvind Mehrotra Vs. Municipal Board, Mussoorie. The suit for permanent injunction was decreed and it was directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises except in accordance with law. The defendant i.e. Mussoorie Nagar Palika Parishad filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. Although these objections were on record that there is statutory bar under Section 15 of Eviction Act for any court to entertain a suit for eviction from a public premises as well as specific bar under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, these objections were not entertained by the appellate court on the grounds that exception 15 of Eviction Act would only come into play if a proceeding under the Eviction Act is pending before institution of the suit ! Be that as it may, the appellate court rejected the appeal of Mussoorie Nagar Palika Parishad, and directed that the petitioner will not be evicted except in accordance with law and also held that since the proceedings under the Eviction Act are already pending, therefore, the concerned court i.e. the prescribed authority will decide the question as to whether the 4 plaintiff/respondent is in unauthorized occupation of the property in question or not. What is, however, of significance here is that there is a categorical finding given by the learned District Judge regarding the nature of the property, so far as the applicability of Act No. 13 of 1972 was concerned, and it was held that provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the property in question. This finding was never challenged before any other forum and hence it had become final.