MEERA DEVI Vs. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the petitioner is to quash (i) the'complaint (copy not appended) made by the Secretary, Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the V. D. A.) for her eviction from Quarter No. 1/10, Deoki Nandan Ki Haveli, Ramapura, Varanasi, (ii) the Notice dated 16-11-1987 in P. P. Act Case No. 919 of 1987 (as contained in An-nexure-5) issued by the Prescribed Authority/city Magistrate under Section 4 (1) of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), (iii) the proceeding pending on the basis of the impugned notice, and (iv) the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement dated 23-1-1984 (as contained in An-nexure-3) by which a monthly instalment of Rs. 252. 86 paisa Rs. 211. 39 paisa and interest at the rate of 12%/9% was fixed: (1) A prayer has also been made to com mand the respondents not to charge interest on the amount payable by the petitioner towards the price of Quarter No. 1/10, Deoki Nandan Ki Haveli, Ramapura, Varanasi and to accept a monthly instalment of Rs. 50 towards payment of the dues. (2) A further prayer has been made to restrain the Tahsildar, Sadar, Varanasi from sending any Amin to the petitioner for realisa tion of any dues and instalment regarding the aforementioned quarter.

(2.) THE petitioner asserts, inter alia, that she is sweeper and thereby scheduled caste, who was previously living along with the members of her family in a dilapidated house bearing No. D- 41/2, Deoki Nandan Ki Haveli, Ramapura, Varanasi on pay ment of Re. 1, which was raised to ground by the bulldozer of the VD. A, under the 20 point programme launched by the Government of U. P. persons belonging to Harijan and Weaker Sections of the society were to be provided houses, and accordingly the Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi constructed Deoki Nandan Ki Haveli Colony, Ramapura, for allotment of a flat in this colony the Authority imposed a condition that the income of the allottee should be Rs. 350 per month ; since the petitioner fulfilled that condition, she applied for allotment of a flat; Quarter No. 1/10 in question was allotted to her on the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum of Agree ment dated 23-1-1984 (as contained in An-nexure-3); as per the terms and conditions of the agreement a sum of Rs. 19504. 85 was fixed as the price of that quarter and a sum of Rs. 1195. 15 paisa was fixed as premium of the land, 15% per annum was fixed as the rate of interest and all these amount was payable at a monthly instalment of Rs. 252. 86 paisa; a rebate at the rate of 3% was also granted provided instalments are paid regularly; as the petitioner and the mem bers of her family were houseless, she had no option but to enter into the aforemen tioned agreement, the terms of which were unfair and unreasonable, opposed to public policy and which is liable to be adjudged as void, a sum of Rs. 1500 was paid in advance by the petitioner, which was to be adjusted towards payment of price of the quarter and the premium in regard to appertaining land ; she made various representations for dispensing with the payment of 12% interest etc. but instead of accepting her reasonable re quests the VD. A. filed a complaint in the Court of City Magistrate / Prescribed Authority, Varanasi for her eviction from the quarter in question ; against the im pugned notice on 23-2-1988 she filed an objection (copy appended as Annexure-6) ; although the aforementioned proceeding is pending, the Amin from Tahsil Sadar, Varanasi from time to time comes to her and threatens with attachment of the quarter in question, if she does not pays the dues, the eviction proceeding is liable to be decided soon against her which will render her and the members of her family home less again, the breach is actionable under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and, therefore, the U. P. Legislature is not competent to enact the Act is respect of the same matter covered under the Central Indian Contract Act and to that extent they are invalid and void ; that the complaint is barred by the principles of promissory estoppel and hence this writ petition.

(3.) THE facts speak for themselves and we do not find any substance in the grounds taken by the petitioner, whose pairiwikar in this writ petition is her hus band who has sworn the affidavit whose income under the Rules has to be taken in account.