BADRI NATH GUPTA Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be a Caterer at the Air Port Restaurant, Civil Air Terminal, Jammu since 1963. A notice under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Central Act No. 40 of 1971 and hereinafter referred to as the Eviction Act) was issued to him by the respondent. The petitioner filed his objections thereto. The respondent eventually passed an order evicting him as an authorised occupant under section 5 of the said Act in August, 1974. The petitioner went in appeal against this order, but his appeal too was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jammu on December 6, 1976. He has in this writ petition challenged the orders of the respondent as well as of the Additional District Judge and prayed for issuance of a proper writ, order or direction maintaining his occupation of the premises on the grounds:

(2.) THE case of the respondent on the other hand is that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises June 1, 1973, his period of three years licence by virtue of agreement dated 4, 1970 which was to take effect from June 1, 1970 having expired. Section 5 of the Eviction Act, according to the respondent, is neither violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, nor is the Act itself inapplicable to the premises on the ground that the Parliament had no power to extend its application to the territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been denied that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in support of his case.

(3.) SECTION 5 of the Eviction Act has been attacked on the ground that it gives an unbridled discretion to the Estates Officer making a choice between the remedies of an ordinary civil suit and the summary procedure provided under the Act in respect of eviction of different unauthorised occupants of public premises who may be otherwise similarly situated. The Act does not provide any guidelines as to under what circumstances the ordinary and much easier remedy of civil suit should be followed and under what circumstances the harsh remedy of proceeding under Section 5 should be followed. Reliance has been placed upon an often cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. and another v. State of Punjab and another: AIR 1967 S.C. 1581. This judgment could undoubtedly help the petitioner under the old Act of 1958. The earlier Act (No. XXXII) of 1958 was in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment in Northern India Caterers Case (Supra) and a few more judgments of re -enacted and replaced by Act No. 40 of 1971. One of the features of the new Act was the insertion of section 15 which reads thus: