BUDAN KHAN Vs. ESTATE OFFICER HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition restraining the 2nd respondent from proceeding with the ease of eviction against the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the impugned Act).

(2.) The essential facts in order to appreciate the merits of the contentions raised before us are that the petitioner took on lease a site known as South-east corner plot of Victoria Zenana Hospital, Hyderabad from the former Government of Hyderabad for the purpose of erecting a petrol pump. The rent fixed was O. S. 15/- (Rs.) per month. The petitioner thereafter constructed the petrol pump and was carrying on petrol business. Subsequently on 24-8-1954 the lease was renewed and the rent agreed to be paid was Rs. 21 per month. In April 1962, the Government of Andhra Pradesh asked the petitioner to pay Rs. 40 per month instead of Rs. 21. With some hesitation the petitioner agreed to pay the rent. Government thereafter asked the petitioner to renew the lease. The petitioner agreed to do so and submitted the necessary stamp paper. When the draft was shown to him he declined to execute on the plea that the lease as it stood in 1954 should be repeated, and no new term should be added. As the Government was not willing and was insisting on a clause that the Government will be at liberty to evict the petitioner at their pleasure, the petitioner declined to agree to the execution of the lease. Consequently the Government issued a notice under the impugned Act directing the petitioner to show cause why he should not be evicted from the premises. The petitioner therefore has filed this petition questioning the validity of the impugned Act and the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to continue the proceedings under the impugned Act.

(3.) The principal contention of Mr. K. Jagannadharao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the Madras Land Encroachment Act (Act III of 1905) was extended to Telangana area by G. O. Ms. No. 23-P-2-58 and it came into force in this area from 15-1-1959. In spite of this Act the State Legislature passed the impugned Act in 1961. It is contended that both these Acts occupy the same field at least in so far as land is concerned. It is contended that the authorities concerned are left to an unguided and uncontrolled discretion to pick and choose the Act under which proceedings for eviction against "unauthorised occupant" should be started. Different persons thus falling under the class or category of unauthorised occupants of public premises would be subject to different procedures, one under Act III of 1905 and the other under the impugned Act. It was further contended that the impugned Act being more drastic and less advantageous than Act III of 1905 the persons like the petitioner would be discriminated from those whose cases would be tried under the more liberal and advantageous Act III of 1905 although all these persons belong to the same class or category of unauthorised occupants of public premises. His submission therefore is that the impugned Act being more drastic and less advantageous is violation of Article 14 and must therefore be struck down. In that view of the submission it is contended that the 2nd respondent would have no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings of eviction against the petitioner.