BARKAT ALI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was originally filed by one Barkat Ali who, at the date of the petition w as a retired Sub-Assistant Conservator of Forces and a tenant of Government premises No 32 bearing Municipal No. 5-5-404. The petitioner's case is that he was inducted in possession of the premises as a tenant in 1943 on a monthly rental of Rs, 50-50. During his service, the rent was being deducted from the salary. His contention is that thereafter he used to pay the rents directly. He admits that he has been in seme arrears. On 22nd March, 1963, the Executive Engineer, P W.D. Hyderabad Buildings Division, Hyderabad, issued a notice No. 12964 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises before 21st April, 1963. In the notice it was stated that the building is required for a Government purpose. The petitioner's case is that the said notice did not state not treat him as an unauthorised occupant. His tenancy has rot so far been determined and there was no specific period of tarancy and as such, according to the petitioner, the lease period has not yet expired. The petitioner therefore cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant and as such file provisions of Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unaushorised Odeupants) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) could not be made applicable to his case, The second respondent i.e the Estate Officer, Government of Andhra Pradesh served a notice No. A/241/63, dated 6'th June, 1963, under section 4(1) of the Act. In that notice it was mentioned that the pre. mises were required for the Government purpose and it further stated that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant, which, according to the petitioner Was contrary to the provisions of law. The notice called upon the petitioner to show" cause on or before 17th June, 1963, why an order of eviction should not be made against him. On receipt of this notice the petitioner on 17th June, 1963, made an application attaching thereto a medical certificate that be was confined to bed and unable to move about and had been advised complete rest for a fortnight. The petitioner therefore requested the second respondent to adjourn the case for that period. The petitioner's contention is that no order was passed on the petition of adjournment of his; but the second respondent on 27th June, 1963, passed an order under sub-settion (1) cf section5 of the Act that the petitioner and all persons who may be in orcupation of the premises should vacate the said premises within 60 days of the date of the publication of that order.

(2.) On receipt of the aforesaid order the petitioner approached the Government and the Government by their Memorandum No.3315/63-2, dated 10th September, 1963, stayed the order of eviction and directed the collation of arrears at the rate twice the monthly rent as per mutual agreement atinved at with the Government. Accordingly the first payment of Rs 100-12 was accepted on 23rd September, 1963. The stay order granted by the Goverment was vacated and the same was communicated to the petitioner by the second respondent by letter No. A/241/63, dated 15th October, 1963, and me second respondent fixed 16th November, 1963, to effect the eviction proceedings. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the second respondent, the petitioner filed Appeals Nos. 21 and 23 under section 9 of the Act before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad; Those appeals were rejected on 14th February, 1964. This writ petition is filed against the aforesaid orders. The petititioncr died during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal representatives has been brought on record.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before me: (1) The Act is discriminatory as it makes a distinction between Government property and private property and thus Infringes Article 14 of the Constitution of India: (2) Section 5 of the Act is invalid as it discriminates between occupants of Government property. (3) The petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant because there was no valid notice terminating his tenancy. (4) The Government granted stay of eviction on 19th September, 1963. Fresh proceedings of eviction should have been started by the second respondent (5) No sufficient opportunity wat given to the petitioner under section 4 of the Act. (6) The ground for eviction is mala fide, The petitioner's contention that in view of the Government Order, dated 19th September, 1963, fresh proceedings of eviction should have been started, has absolutely on merit. The petitioner attempts to put a construction on the Go vernment memorandum that all the proceedings taken by the second respon. dent for eviction of the petitioner, came to an end by that memorandum. The Memorandum clearly states that the second respondent is "requested to keep in abeyance the eviction of the petitioner until further order " It was clearly a stay of eviction granted by the Government which was later vacated by Go vernment memorandum No. 3063-U-I/63-2, dated 14th October, 1963 which was communicated to the petitioner by the second respondent on l6th October, 1963. The stay order can never have the effect of nullifying all the proceed ings that were taken earlier.