PIARA SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, challenge is to the action of the respondent-authority in proceeding to evict the petitioners from the premises in question without issuing any notice or without following the procedure as laid down under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short 1971 Act).

(2.) IT has been averred in the petition that the petitioners were inducted as tenants by Kamlesh Inder Singh who is owner of house in dispute. One R.K. Thakur (respondent No. 5 herein) was also one of the tenants on the ground floor of the said house. Respondent-Administration vide order dated 24.11.1991 proceeded to resume the site under House No. 2019, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh on the ground of misuse by R.K. Thakur and its owner, Kamlesh Inder Singh. The house was resumed as the Authorities found that the same was being used for the purpose other than for which it was built. Pursuant to order of resumption, the Estate Officer proceeded to issue notice under Section 4(1) of the 1971 Act. Order under Section 5 of the 1971 Act was passed. Appeal by R.K. Thakur against the order was dismissed by the District Judge and under the garb of the order, the Estate Officer proceeded to take possession of the house despite the fact that no notice under the 1971 Act was served on the petitioners. Petitioners have averred that they have been in possession as tenants and on the date when order was passed or the premises were sealed, they were continuing as tenants. At the time of motion hearing, counsel for the petitioners referred to some material for showing that petitioners were in occupation of the premises as tenants. Counsel was asked to give to counsel opposite the advance copies of documents which he wanted to rely upon. Some of the documents which have been shown relate only to petitioners 2 and 4. There is no material in regard to occupation of petitioners 1 and 3. Opposed to this, the case of respondnet No. 4 is that the petitioners were never in occupation of the premises and if at all they were in occupation, they were at the instance of R.K. Thakur against whom proceedings have become final. According to the counsel, persons who have come in occupation at the instance of tenant cannot have better rights than tenant against whom proceedings have become final.

(3.) PARTIES through their counsel are directed to appear before the Estate Officer on 28.8.1995, on which date he shall give one opportunity each to petitioners 2 and 4 and respondent No. 4 to lead evidence, if any, and then decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within one month thereafter.