ADARSHA PATHAGAR Vs. MANAGER (TS) LAND, RSP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition is at the behest of the petitioner challenging the initiation and continuance of the proceeding against it under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the OPP Act') on the grounds inter alia that such action vide Annexure-1 is outrightly illegal and hence, to quash the same with a direction to the opposite parties to execute and renew the sub-lease agreement and not to create any obstruction in its regular activities and functioning from the leased out premises.

(2.) In fact, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the eviction proceeding initiated against it by opposite party No.2 by claiming that the occupation of the premises in question is not unauthorized pending renewal of the sub-lease in respect thereof. It is claimed that opposite party No.1 instead of complying the approval order not only made illegal demand for deposit but also initiated the action under challenge before opposite party No.2 under the OPP Act. It is alleged that opposite party No.1 intentionally did not take any step to renew the sub-lease in respect of the entire area of Ac. 3.19 decimals rather made the alleged demand under Annexure-4 and its compliance as a pre-condition for such renewal which thereafter led to the initiation of the proceeding. So, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court up against the initiation of eviction proceeding under the OPP Act alleging that the sub-lease was not renewed and instead unreasonable demand has been made despite the fact that it is a voluntary organization operational since 1956 which manages one of the biggest and oldest libraries in Orissa having an auditorium and a sister organization teaching and imparting training in music, dance etc. Hence, the petitioner on the aforesaid grounds has assailed the impugned action and eviction proceeding initiated and pending before opposite party No.2.

(3.) On the contrary, opposite party No.1 justified the action under challenge by stating that first and foremost, the writ petition is not maintainable and secondly, it was inevitable as the company was left with no other option but to evict the petitioner by following due process of law. It is claimed that the petitioner without exhausting the statutory remedy under the OPP Act has approached this Court which should not, therefore, be entertained. That apart, according to opposite party No.1, the sub-lease expired on 7/1/2004 and the Committee constituted for the same, recommended the case of the petitioner on 4/5/2010 for execution of an agreement which was duly forwarded to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, later to which, the State Government after careful consideration by order dtd. 17/1/2011 was pleased to approve the proposed sub-lease and its renewal, consequent upon which, the details of the dues payable by the petitioner was worked out keeping in view the decision of the Sub-lease Committee referring to the resolution of the Board of Directors of SAIL which was thereafter communicated vide letter dtd. 12/10/2012 for necessary compliance. As per opposite party No.1 despite repeated reminders as at Annexure-4 series to the writ petition, the petitioner did not deposit the dues rather remained in occupation of the premises and as a result, on 18/7/2020, notice was issued calling upon to handover its vacant possession which was not obliged and the possession was continued for more than 17 years which, in absence of sub-lease renewed, is unauthorized and therefore, by its own conduct for not showing any interest for renewal of sub-lease or vacating the premises, the company had no other alternative except to resort to the remedial measures, for which, the proceeding in P.P. Case No.300001 of 2020 was initiated which is perfectly justified and in accordance with law.