SARJIWAN TIWARI Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioners filed an application on 3. 10. 1996 before the learned Collector (Sub Divisional Officer), Ludhiana West for framing issues in the proceedings pending before that Authority Under Section 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred as the Act. This application was dismissed vide order dated 14. 11. 1996 by the said Authority Under Section 4 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 14. 11. 1996 in this revision petition. Before adverting to the main controversy between the parties, it may be appropriate to refer to necessary facts:

(2.) THE petitioners herein are stated to be the employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala and are working on different posts The petitioners have unauthorisedly occupied some part of the land in the staff colony and constructed huts and are in occupation thereof. The respondent-Board claimed that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of part of the land of khasra Nos. 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282 and 283 as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92 of Village Sunat No. 59, Tehsil and District Ludhiana has instituted a petition Under Section 5 of the Act. The petitioners herein appeared before the Authority concerned and filed their reply. They took various objections including that the Executive Engineer was not competent and authorised person to file the petition as no resolution supported his authority. The details of the properties were not mentioned. While according to the respondent-Board, the petitioners being the employees of the Board were in possession of these premises and were required to pay rent which was being deducted from their respective salaries. The petitioners claim to be tenants in the alternative while raising their primary claim of ownership by adverse possession of the land in question. The Board disputed both these contentions and averred that; these petitioners were claiming house rent by giving fictitious addresses and claiming to be residents on payment of rent and they were being paid such rent. In addition to these pleas being raised, on merits, the respondent-Board has even raised preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the present revision petition on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy Under Section 9 of the Act is available to the petitioners.

(3.) THUS , two questions which arise for consideration as a result of the aforestated facts are as under: (1) Whether the present revision petition is barred in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973? (2) Is the Authority notified under the provisions of this Act is required to regulate its procedure strictly in accordance with the provisions of the code of Civil Procedure? If not, what procedure it is required to follow?