GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD Vs. DHAMJI VIJENDRA MERITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of petitions, the petitioner-Competent Authority, Gujarat Housing Board has approached this Court in second round.

(2.) The Gujarat Housing Board had built tenaments in 326 Middle Income Group (M.I.G.) at Bhavnagar. The present respondents were allotted premises on hire purchase basis. In the year 1984, many of the allottees having not paid rent equivalent to amount of instalments due and payable under the agreement entered into between the Housing Board and the allottees, the Competent Officer appointed under the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act of 1972') issued notice to the allottees calling upon them to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made. The Competent Officer, after following the procedure laid down under the Gujarat Act of 1972, passed the order of eviction on 25-11-1986. The allottees against whom the order of eviction was passed, preferred appeals to the Court of District Judge, Bhavnagar. The learned District Judge allowed the appeals and quashed the order of eviction on the ground that the allottees were not governed by the provisions of the Gujarat Act of 1972, and therefore, proceedings initiated by the Competent Officer were without jurisdiction. The Gujarat Housing Board approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application. This Court, by judgment dated 15-4-1991 held that the Housing Board is a Corporation established under the Act of 1961 and is controlled by the State Government, and therefore, the premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of the Housing Board is a public premises within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Gujarat Act of 1972. In view of this finding, this Court allowed the group of petitions and set aside the order passed by the District Judge and remitted the matter to the Competent Officer with a direction to pass orders afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondents in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in the judgment. It appears that the Housing Board issued fresh notice to the individual defaulter-allottees with a view to update the arrears due. It would be convenient to refer one of the notices as filed in Special Civil Application No. 5144 of 1994. The notice has been given to one of the allottees, namely, Dhamji Vijendra Mehta. English translation of the notice reads as under : xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(3.) Before the Competent Officer, on the first date of hearing, i.e., on 10-12-1991, Mr. S. J. Sheth, learned Advocate appeared for the allottees and sought time for filing written statement. Thereafter also various adjournments were granted as is evident from the order of the Competent Officer, i.e., on 9-1-1992, 10-2-1992, 12-3-1992, 26-3-1992, 11-5-1992, 9-6-1992, 8-7-1992, 5-8-1992, 8- 8-1992, 9-11-1992, 7-12-1992, 3-1-1993 and on 10-2-1993. It appears that at a later stage, the objections were presented before the Competent Officer by the Clerk of the defendants' Advocate. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was recorded. In spite of several opportunities given, either the allottees or their Advocate did not appear. The Competent Officer in his order dated 9-7-1993 has recorded that despite giving sufficient opportunities the defendant has failed to defend himself. He also recorded that the defendant is interested in prolonging the matter instead of extending co-operation.