VEERMATI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 10-12-2002 passed by the District Judge, Nainital and the order dated 24-9-2002 passed by respondent no. 3 (contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively ). The petitioner has further prayed for direc tion to respondents not to evict the pe titioner from the premises in question (Argles Ford) which has been duly allot ted to her. By the order dated 24-9-2002, the Prescribed Authority had con firmed the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 4 (1) of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Oc cupants) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and also passed an order of eviction against the petitioner from the public premises. By order dated 10-12-2002 the appeal of the petitioner has been dis missed by the learned District Judge, Nainital.

(2.) RELEVANT facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief are that a building known as Argles Ford in Mallital, Nainital was allotted to Chaudhary Shivraj Singh on December 02,1957 by the then Rent Control and Eviction Officer Nainital (for short the R. C. and E. G. ). At that time, M/s Parma Shiv Lal Sah was the landlord of the house in question. On or about 27-4-1976, the said house was purchased by the Kumaon University from the heirs of the original landlord and Sri Shiv Raj Singh continued to be the tenant. After the death of Shiv Raj Singh the Univer sity asked the petitioner to vacate the premises and it also served a notice/let ter dated 22-12-1978. The said letter was challenged by the petitioner in the court of Munsif Nainital by filing Origi nal Suit No. 01 of 1979 against Kumaon University. The suit was decreed on 21- 8-1979 by Sri S. C. Agarwal, the then Munsif Nainital and the University was restrained from evicting the plaintiff-pe titioner except in accordance with law. The petitioner approached the University for purchase of the building which ap pears to have been considered accept able on certain terms and the Govern ment was moved by the University for necessary permission by letter dated 24- 04-1981. However, the deal could not be materialized between the parties. Ul timately, a notice dated 6-4-2000 was served upon the petitioner on behalf of the University on 9-4-2000 thereby the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated on the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of notice. In reply to the said notice, the petitioner appears to have paid a sum of Rs. 73,3457- vide Cheque No. 057497 dated 8- 5-2000 towards part of the demanded arrears of rent and interest thereon and she sent reply through her counsel on 8-5-2000, but she did not vacate the premises in ques tion. Subsequently, on 16-8-2000, the University through its Registrar moved an application under Section 4 (1) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question, which was earlier known as Strawberry Cottage. Eviction Case No. 22/49 of 2000-2001 was reg istered before the Prescribed Authority and notice in Form A was issued to the petitioner. She contested the application of the University and filed her objections on 18-5- 2001. She admitted the Univer sity to be the owner and landlord of the premises known as Argles Ford but con tended that she still continues to be the tenant of the premises in question and she is not liable to be evicted.

(3.) AT the outset it may be men tioned that the petitioner has stated in paragraph no. 16 that since 1981 no response was received from the respond ent no. 4, then petitioner in the year 1986 instituted a suit for specific per formance of contract of sale executed between the petitioner and the respond ent no. 4, but the petitioner did not like to disclose the particulars as well as the fate of the suit, while in paragraph no. 20, it has been stated that all of a sud den on 16-08-2000 the respondent no. 4 filed a case before the opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner under provisions of the Act wherein an order was passed on 24-9-2002 directing for evic tion of the petitioner from the premises in question. Moreover, in the counter affidavit the averments made in para graph no. 16 of the writ petition have been denied. It was stated that in the light of the decision of the Executive Council the petitioner was informed about the terms and conditions for re sale of the building but the same was not followed by the petitioner and a let ter to this effect was sent by her on 17-12-1980. Rejoinder Affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner but even the particulars of the suit allegedly filed in the year 1986 have not been furnished. Even if it may be taken that the peti tioner had filed a suit for specific per formance of contract, mere filing of the suit does no* confer any right or title to the petitioner. Besides, the impugned orders have been passed by the Pre scribed Authority and the Appellate Court under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the contents of paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition have no relevance for the controversy involved in the present writ petition.