R KANNAIYAN Vs. ASSISTANT TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATION T A DEPARTMENT NEYELI LIGNITE CORPORATION NEYVELI 1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges an order passed under Sec.5 of the Public (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Act XL of 1971) on 22.6.1990, by petitioner was requested to surrender the quarters in which he was residing.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as Assistant Purchase Manager in Neyveli Lignite Corporation and retired from service on 30.11.1989 after serving the Corporation for 33 years was in service, he was allotted a quarters C.30, Block No.9, J.C. Bose Road, Neyveli petitioner has been living in the quarters with his family. THE petitioner's eldest qualified Noildar Attendant in the Corporation and he has under gone three years course in the Corporation and he was appointed as an Industrial Worker, Grade I with from 1.1.1991 for a period of one vear. THE other children of the petitioner are studying Neyveli. It is alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner has to necessarily stay in 1994 in view of his children prosecuting their studies in Neyveli and that one of the petitioner has become eligible for allotment of quarters on his getting married shortly. order dated 22.11.1989, the petitioner was relieved from his duty with effect 30.11.1989 and according to the rules in force, he can retain the quarters allotted to a maximum period of 4 months from the date of his relief from service till 31.3.1990. petitioner was informed on 22.11.1989 that he should arrange to vacate and surrender quarters on the due date positively. It is also stated that the order allotting the quarters be deemed to have been cancelled from that date, i.e., 31.3.1990. By an order 29.11.1989, the pensionary benefits were granted to the petitioner. On 16.2.1990, petitioner has requested for continuance of quarters upto 30.4.1990 and his request retention of the quarters was acceded to subject to payment of house rent and charges in advance. It was made clear to the petitioner that the quarters on any should be arranged to be vacated and surrendered to the Department on or before permitted period, i.e., 30.4.1990 without fail. On 22.6.1990, a notice under Sec.5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Act has been issued to the petitioner stating that in Form A notice dated 19.5.1990, petitioner has been requested to surrender the quarters and that he has not surrendered quarters, nor given proper reply with reference to Form A notice and the quarters vacated immediately. THE petitioner was asked to vacate the premises on 12.7.1990. THEreafter, the petitioner started making representations on 11.7.1990 General Manager for some more time to surrender the quarters. However, by May, petitioner started taking a stand that his son is entitled to an accommodation and has to reside there for the purpose of the education of the children. THE petitioner made a representation to the president of N..L.C. Retired National Employees " Association. is alleged in the affidavit that he has been continuing to occupy the premises by stipulated rent and in this case alone, the Corporation has shown a different attitude permitted retired employees to occupy the quarters on payment of stipulated rent. since he has made a representation on 11.7.1990 and no reply has been received, under the impression that, that his request to continue the premises will be considered. stated in the affidavit that the notices issued under Secs.4 and 5 have become inoperative efflux of time and are invalid, illegal and arbitrary. In paragraph No.4 of the affidavit, four names of the retired employees have been given who have been allowed to continue premises even after retirement and that the petitioner alone has been discriminated. petitioner also alleges in the affidavit that an order under Sec.5 is shown to have passed on 22.6.1990, but by reason of the order not being executed for more than has become invalid and inexecutable. THE petitioner alleges as if he has got a continue the premises.

(3.) IT is necessary to set out certain provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction Unauthorised Occupants) Act (Central Act XL of 1971) for the purpose of understanding arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sub-sec.(e) of Sec.2 defines premises. Sub-sec.(g) of Sec.2 defines unauthorised occupation. Sec.4 talks issue to show cause against an order of eviction. Sec.5 spoke of an order of eviction unauthorised occupation Sec.9 provides for an appeal against the order of estate made in respect of any public premises under Sec.5 or Sec.7 to an appellate authority.