SHANTI DEVI Vs. COMMANDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer appointed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 on 13.7.1990 in respect of Shop No.14, Varunapuri Shopping Complex, Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa and also the order passed by the District Judge, South Goa at Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.29/90 dated 4.4. 1991. According to the petitioner, on 11.11. 1985, the Commanding Officer, INS Gomantak, Vasco-da-Gama entered into an agreement with the appellant, allowing her to instal a shoe mart leather shop in the Indian Naval Shopping Complex at Sailors Residential Complex, Varunapuri on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-, excluding the water and electricity charges that are payable under the Rules. THE lease was effective for a period of 11 months from 11.11. 1985 and the lease period could be extended by mutual consent of the parties for further period of 6 months or more, on the expiry of the contract. THE petitioner continued with occupation of the shop even after expiry of the lease period and the respondents continued accepting the rents even after expiry of the lease.

(2.) WHILE so, on 25.7.1987, the Officer-in-charge of Varunapuri sent a circular to all the Shopkeepers including the appellant informing that the electricity and water charges due by them would be collected at the rates mentioned in the said circular and as per the said circular, the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 25/- per month towards the electricity charges for 50 units. A reply has been sent by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 28.7.1988, the administrative officer of Varunapuri called upon the petitioner to be present alongwith her husband on 29.7.1988 in connection with the termination of the agreement, failing which the eviction from the said shop would be done on 30.7.1988. It is also informed by the Commanding Officer that the agreement of lease has been expired on 31.3.1988 and it has not been renewed on account of non-payment of the LF bills and also of not keeping the premises clean, neat and tidy, misbehaviour with the Varunapuri Administrative Staff by the appellant's husband and not accepting the notice issued by the Officer-in-charge of Varunapuri. It was also informed to the petitioner that she was required to vacate the premises by 20.00 hours of 29.7.1988. However, the petitioner did not vacate the said premises, but sent a reply informing him that she has already paid the electricity bills. The petitioner has also approached this Court in that context and this Court has directed the respondents to put the appellant back in possession of the said shop and directed that she shall not be evicted unless proceedings under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were instituted against her. Accordingly, the petitioner continues to be in occupation of the said premises. Thereafter, the proceedings under the said Act have been initiated against the petitioner by the Estate Officer on the application of the Commanding Officer, INS Gomantak. The proceedings went on for about 2 years. Evidence has been recorded and before passing of the final order, the Estate Officer has been transferred and a new Officer has taken charge as Estate Officer. The petitioner further alleges that immediately, after the new Officer took the charge of the Estate Officer, he informed to the respondents about the infirmity of non-termination of the lease with the petitioner. He has written a letter to the respondents with a view to remove that infirmity in the eviction proceedings. He informed the respondents to terminate the lease with the petitioner. Presumably, accepting the advice given by the Estate Officer, the respondents issued a notice of termination of the lease with the petitioner dated31.1. 1990, Exhibit "w" in this writ petition. By this notice, the petitioner was informed that the original period of lease has expired on 11.11. 1986, which was renewed from time to time till the expiry of the contract. It is also stated that the petitioner was continuing with the possession in violation of the terms of the agreement and they also noticed that the petitioner was put back in possession of the premises as per the directions of the High Court and ultimately, it has been stated in the notice that the allotment of the said shop No.14, Varunapuri, Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa has been cancelled. It is to be noted here that after directions of this Court, the petitioner continued in occupation by making payment of rents regularly and for the first time on 31.1. 1990, the said lease was terminated. At this juncture, it is profitable to notice the relevant section of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Section 2 (g) defines unauthorised occupation, which reads thus : " "unauthorised occupation", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. " Section 3 deals with appointment of Estate Officers, Section 4 deals with an issue of notice to show cause before order of eviction is passed, and Section 5 deals with eviction of unauthorised occupants. Aforesaid provisions of Section 2 (g) clearly lays down as to when authorised occupation of a public premises becomes unauthorised. Section 4 says that when such an incident happens i. e. when authorised occupation becomes unauthorised, a notice has to be issued to the person who is in unauthorised occupation, giving an opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be evicted.

(3.) COMING to the facts of this case, it is clear that the lease of the petitioner was terminated on 31.3.1988 and after that, admittedly, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of eviction ordered against the petitioner is passed without observing the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The Lower Court has committed a serious error in not considering this aspect of the matter while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.