S.R. GUPTA Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order proposes to decide two writ petitions arising out of the same facts against the same set of contesting respondents challenging the same orders of ejectment under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ('the PP Act' for short). However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CWP No. 4963 of 2013. The brief facts of the case are that the present proprietor Sh. Subash Chander claims that Sh. S.R. Gupta was his grandfather. Sh. S.R. Gupta was working as Photographer for the Indian Army since 1924. Service of photography used to be provided at various locations. He continued to serve as an official photographer for the Indian Army at Pathankot since June 1948. Thereafter, by virtue of contract dated 19.4.1949 (Annexure P -1) executed between the petitioner and Officer Commanding Headquarter, Pathankot Base, Pathankot, petitioner was granted a right of management of a photo studio located at the erstwhile base Headquarter at the rent of Rs. 20/ - per month. The present site was leased out by the respondents in the year 1965. Some of the lease deeds were appended at Annexures P -14 to P -16. The shop was constructed by the petitioner, as per Annexures P -4 and P -5 and the cost was to be adjusted in the rent.

(2.) LAST lease deed was executed on 15.11.2008 (Annexure P -16) for 11 months. Agreement for lease of the shop in question used to be entered between the parties. One such lease deed dated 15.6.1967 is appended at Annexure P -2. However, after expiry of the lease period on 15.10.2009, neither lease period was extended nor a fresh lease dead was executed between the parties. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that he deposited the advance rent up to 31.3.2010, which was accepted by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, the impugned notice dated 9.11.2012 (Annexure P -20) came to be issued against the petitioner under the PP Act, to show cause as to why the order of eviction should not be passed against him. The petitioner submitted his mercy petition and reply to the above said notice, vide reply dated 29.11.2012 (Annexure P -21). Reply of the petitioner was considered and subsequently, he had a meeting with the Defence Estate Officer, Pathankot on 24.11.2012. It was held that the shop constructed on the defence land was needed for departmental requirements. Reply to the show cause notice was received. After examining the reply, it was found to be unsatisfactory. It was also held that neither the petitioner paid the rent nor the lease deeds were renewed. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure P -22), petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within 30 days of the receipt of the order. Aggrieved, petitioner filed his statutory appeal vide Annexure P -24, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 18.2.2013 (Annexure P -25) by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pathankot. Hence these writ petitions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders were illegal on the face of it. Provisions of the PP Act were violated. The impugned eviction order and the appellate order were contrary to the facts of the case as well as the provisions of law applicable thereof. The basic principles of natural justice were also violated, because no effective opportunity was granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence. Neither any opinion was sought under Section 4, nor any satisfaction was recorded under Section 5 of the PP Act. Cause shown by the petitioner was not considered. No evidence was led by the landlord. He relies upon the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and another, : (2008) 3 SCC 279 and a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Minoo Framroze Balsara v. The Union of India and others, : AIR 1992 Bombay 375. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders by allowing the present writ petitions.