H.P.HOUSING BOARD Vs. N.S.BRAMTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Himachal Pradesh Housing Board (hereinafter called the Board) is the Petitioner in all three of them. The Board is aggrieved by the order(s) passed by Commissioner Shimla Division, Shimla (hereinafter called the Commissioner), whereby the appeal by first Respondent, in each case was accepted and eviction order(s) was set aside. The eviction order(s) was passed against the first Respondent, in each case, by Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Urban), Shimla exercising the powers of Collector under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act of 1971) on the petition(s) filed by the Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer of the Board under Section 4 of the Act of 1971.

(2.) The case of the Board in all the three petitions is that it had purchased a part of the property known as Straw Berry Hill Estate, Chhota Shimla on 26th March, 1982 vide sale deed dated 31st August, 1982. At the time of purchase of this property, the previous owner had declared by way of her affidavit that there was no tenant in any part of the said property. But after taking possession of the property, the Board found that the first Respondent, in each case, was occupying the premises whose description is given in each petition. Therefore, the Board issued notice(s) through its the then Executive Engineer calling upon the first Respondent, in each case, to vacate the premises on or before 15th January, 1983. When despite notice(s), the premises were not vacated, the Board filed petition(s) under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 through its Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, in which besides eviction the relief of damages for the use and occupation of the premises was also sought at the rates given in the petition(s). In the petition(s), the then Executive Engineer of the Board appeared as witness and reiterated the allegations made in it.

(3.) In the case of Civil Misc. Petition (Main) No. 343 of 1988, notice as well as petition was also filed against second Respondent Shri C.S. Bramta besides first Respondent Shri N.S. Bramta for the same premises. During the proceedings before the Collector, Shri C.S. Bramta made statement that premises in dispute were in exclusive possession of Shri N.S. Bramta, therefore, eviction order was passed against him (N.S. Bramta) only. The appeal against the eviction order was also filed by the first Respondent, therefore, second Respondent Shri C.S. Bramta, impleaded in the present petition, is unnecessary. In the result, his name is ordered to be deleted from the array of Respondents in the present petition.