SOUCE MARIE AND RATHINAMUTHAMMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI), UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRY, PONDICHERRY,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to order bearing No. Ned/CP/C3/92/90, dated 20.12.1990 on the file of the second respondent as confirmed by the order and decretal order, dated 10.3.1994 made in C.M.A.No.6/91 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner was granted lease by the Government an area of 12 x 12 square metres for the purpose of putting up a house for the period of five years from 1.1.1972 to 31.12.1976. Subsequent to that, the petitioner constructed a house in that plot and he is now residing there. The lease was not extended thereafter. In the meanwhile, on 24.1.1989, the respondents issued eviction notice to the petitioner. Against that C.M.A.6 of 1991 was filed and that was dismissed and against that, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he was given the land on lease for the specific purpose of constructing a house. Therefore, in accordance with the lease, he constructed the house and he is residing there continuously and even though the lease period came to an end on 31.12.1976, no notice was issued subsequent to 1976 till 1989. Therefore, the petitioner was under the impression, his lease being extended on the same conditions. Further, the petitioner states that since he has put up a house in the land allotted to him and since the purpose for which this land is required by the Government as revealed in the notice of eviction, is to construct a Kalyana Mandapam, the petitioner was prepared to surrender his lands to the same extent which are available adjoining to this land. Therefore, instead of cancelling the lease granted to him over this property, the Government can exchange the lands which are owned by him. Therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed. The counsel also submitted that though there is no specific clause for extending the lease, since this Court is a Court of Equity, may consider the equitable relief and that the petitioner may be declared that he is entitled to claim, especially in the circumstances of the case where from 1976 till 1989, there was no order whatsoever directing the petitioner to vacate the premises.