GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD Vs. BIPINBHAI R JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH served, nobody has appeared for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. On the ground that default was committed by respondent in paying the installment/rent for public premises allotted to him, proceedings were taken against the respondent for eviction under the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short "the Act"). The said proceedings commenced in the year 1988. However, on account of they having been remanded twice, it was only on 1st of October, 2007 that finally impugned order came to be passed in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2005 by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, quashing and setting aside the order of eviction, as also for recovery of installment/rent on the ground of limitation only.

(2.) TO appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be beneficial to reproduce Section 4 and 5 of the Act :

(3.) BE it noted that under Section 4 of the Act, one of the grounds for eviction can be nonpayment of rent for a period of more than two months. If the claim of rent is barred by limitation only consequences will be that the competent authority may not be able to recover the same by filing the suit or resorting to the Bombay Land Revenue Code. That would, however, not mean that the defaulter can retain the public premise; despite being in arrears. In other words, bar of remedy for recovery of rent would not bar remedy of eviction. Both the remedies are distinct and independent. Merely because competent authority is unable to recover the arrears of rent by the reason of the remedy being barred, it cannot be said that it is incompetent even to enforce the eviction. If the view taken by learned appellate Judge is approved, it would amount to premium on the wrong done by the respondent which is not permissible.