MUMTAZ ALI KHAN Vs. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALIGARH Muslim University, ALIGARH, has got certain residential accommodation meant for its teachers and staff. The Executive Council of the University has framed certain regulations in regard to the allotment of houses. These allotments are made to the teachers and staff of the University strictly in accordance with their seniority. Regulation 12 framed by the Executive Council provides that a person who has ceased to be an employee of the University by retirement shall vacate the residential accommodation allotted to him within three months of his ceasing to be in the employment of the University. The plaintiff-appellant ceased to be in the employment of the University from 30th November 1982. Accordingly under the aforesaid regulation the plaintiff was obliged to vacate the accommodation in question by the end of February 1983 and he was also informed of the same vide letter dated 7th January 1984 from the Estate Officer of the University. The plaintiff was also informed that in case of failure, he shall become "unauthorised occupant " of the accommodation in question with effect from 1st March 1983. The plaintiff, however, did not vacate the said accommodation. This led to the filing of a petition u/Sec. 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) by the University before the Estate Officer. The said Estate Officer accordingly issued a notice dated 23rd May 1984 u/Sec. 4 of the Act to the plaintiff. In reply, the plaintiff admitted that he should have vacated the house in question more than a year back under the rules of the University but he prayed that he may be permitted to occupy the said premises till first week of August 1984. Accordingly, the Estate Officer fixed 7th August 1984 as the date of hearing of the aforesaid case which was numbered as Case No. 50 of 1984. The plaintiff still did not vacate the said premises and sought for extension of time to vacate till the end of September 1984. This request was also accepted and the plaintiff was permitted to occupy the premises till 30th September 1984. Since the plaintiff again still did not vacate the premises, the Estate Officer, after considering the entire facts of the case and hearing both the parties, passed the order dated 19th October 1984 for eviction of the plaintiff. No appeal as provided for under Section 9 of the Act was filed by the plaintiff against the aforesaid order of the Estate Officer and the said order became final. However, the plainfiff filed an application dated 13th December 1984 before the Vice-Chancellor of the University and requested him to permit him to continue in the said house for another three months. During this period the plaintiff filed a suit (numbered as Original Suit No. 554 of 1984) in the court of Civil Judge, ALIGARH and also prayed for an interim injunction. Ultimately on 21st January 1987 the application for interim injunction was rejected by the Civil Judge, ALIGARH. The present F.A.F.O. has been filed by the plaintiff appellant against the aforesaid order dated 21st January 1987.

(2.) ON 27th February 1987 at the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties the case was directed to be listed for final hearing on 11th March 1987. Accordingly, I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal itself.

(3.) IN the present case, the appellant has failed to show whether Sri Abdul Majid Siddiqui, Professor of Chemistry, has or has not been declared by the Statutes to be an officer of the University. For the plea that the aforesaid Estate Officer was not an officer of the University under the Aligarh Muslim University Act, then in view of the provisions of the aforesaid University Act, extracted by me above, that was a question of fact to be investigated by the Authority concerned and for the purpose of this type of plea of total absence of jurisdiction it ought to have been taken before the Estate Officer concerned. Admittedly no such plea affecting the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer was ever taken in any of the applications moved by the appellant before him. The appellant has in this Court also neither averred nor argued that there has been any failure of justice on account of the same or the merits of the case has been affected thereby. Therefore, this plea cannot now either be allowed to be taken or gone into by the High Court.