VIKAS PAL Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This his order will govern disposal of WP No. 10436/18 and WP No. 2651/18. In WP No. 2651/18 the petitioner has prayed for a direction for restraining respondents from demolishing shop No. 10 in occupation of the petitioner, whereas in WP No. 10436/18 the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 1/2/2018 issued under Section 4(2)(ii)(b) and sub-section 1 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short Public Premises (Eviction) Act) as also the order dated 17/2/2018 for transferring the shop no. 10 in the name of petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts are that shop in question was leased out by respondent/cantonment board to petitioner's father Shri Ram Prasad Pal for a period of 5 years by lease deed dated 5th December 1997. The petitioner had continued in possession of the shop after expiry of lease and after the death of his father. The petitioner apprehended that his shop will be demolished by the respondents forcibly therefore, he had filed WP No. 2651/18. The petitioner thereafter filed second writ petition being WP No. 10436/18 questioning the eviction proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction) Act with the plea that alongwith the reply filed in the earlier writ petition he had received the impugned notice dated 1/2/18 for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction) Act. Further case of petitioner is that tenancy was inheritable therefore, on the death of his father late Shri Ram Prasad Pal petitioner had filed an application for transferring the shop in question in petitioner's name but said application has been wrongly rejected by order dated 17/2/18.

(3.) The respondents have filed their reply in WP No. 2651/18 taking the stand that the lease period has already expired in the year 2002, therefore, the petitioner had become the encroacher and that after expiry of lease period father of petitioner was asked to vacate the shop in question but he had sought time to vacate it but had not vacated it. It has also been stated that respondent/board has passed a resolution to demolish shops in question alongwith other adjoining 3 shops and develop a park in that area for the public use. The reply also reflects that petitioner had participated in the auction proceedings in respect of new shop constructed by the Cantonment Board near duputa shop but had remained unsuccessful. In these circumstances the respondents had initiated the eviction proceedings by service of notice of eviction under Public Premises (Eviction) Act.