GSRTC Vs. SULEMAN HUSSAINBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application under Sec. 115 CPC is filed against order dated 12.12.1997 passed by the 4th Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot allowing the plaintiff's appeal and directing that the plaintiff's possession of the suit premises shall not be taken except following due process of law, i.e., by taking proceedings under the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 and thereby reversed the order passed by the 10th of joint Civil Judge (SD), Rajkot in Civil Suit No. 1292/1997 rejecting the petitioner's application Exh.5.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the respondent-plaintiff was given a stall on Rajkot State Road Transport Corporation Bus Stand in the year 1975 on a licence tor a period of 11 months on Rs. 400/- per month. Fresh licence was issued on expiry of each terms of 11 months on fresh terms and conditions particularly, the lience fee. In the year 1985, eviction proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff-respondent under the provisions of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972'). The proceedings could not proceed, hence matter was compromised in the year 1993 where in the plaintiff undertook to vacate the premises on 5.12.1997.The Corporation, anticipating vacation of the premises, invited tenders on 25.11.1997 for the subject stall of fruit juice. Various parties including the petitioner-plaintiff submitted tenders. According to the petitioner-Corporation, the plaintiff submitted tender wherein he did not fill up the column indicating the amount. On the other hand, the say of the plaintiff is that he had mentioned the figure Rs. 3,000/-. It is also an admitted fact that prior to the filing of the present suit, the plaintiff had filed a suit in the Court of small Causes seeking declaration that he is a tenant in the subject premises and also claimed injunction against the Corporation not to dispossess him. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 209/1997. The Corporation had entered the caveat and therefore, it was contested at the stage of application for ad-interim injunction. After hearing the parties, the Court rejected the plaintiff's application for interim injunction, while the said suit is still pending and no appeal has been filed against the order rejecting the application for interim injunction, the plaintiff filed the present suit being Civil Suit No. 1297/1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (JD) on the same facts with an additional plea that the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1972. The Trial Court by order dated 24.11.1997 rejected the application for injunction. The appellate Court reversed the order on the ground that the petitioner-Corporation admitted in their earlier written statement-Mark 4/10 that the Act of 1972 applies to the State Corporation. In view of this, the learned Judge held that the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed except with due process of law.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Corporation that the learned Judge of the Appellate Court committed material illegality in exercise of jurisdiction in extending protection to the illegal occuanpt of the public premises at the cost of inconvenience to the general public, in the name of eviction in accordance with law i.e., resorting to the procedure under the Act of 1972. It is also submitted that the learned Judge glozed over the fact that the petitioner in the name of "in accordance with law," has abused the process of law. The plaintiff did not vacate the premises and as such eviction proceedings were initiated in the year 1987 which continued and ultimately, the matter was compromised in the year 1993 and the plaintiff promised to vacate the premises by 5.12.1997. Instead of vacating the premises, he filed a suit and engaged the Corporation in Court proceedings. The learned Advocate submits that the plaintiff-respondent failed to show that he has any right to continue it the suit premises.