KANTILAL JAIN Vs. G T BHUTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the tenant impugns the validity of the order dated 14-8-2003 (Annexure P-8) made under Section 7 of the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956 (in brief the Eviction Act) by which the State Government has been directed to take over the disputed business premises and give the respondent No. 3 the opportunity to let out the same again. The petitioner also challenges the constitutional validity of Section 7 of the Eviction Act.

(2.) The respondent No. 3 filed an application dated 4-6-2002 (Annexure P-l) before the Superintendent Engineer, Buildings and Housing Department (East Division), Gangtok (hereinafter referred to as the Prescribed Authority) requesting to take action under Section 7 of the Eviction Act on the allegation that she as the absolute owner let out to the petitioner the shop premises on the ground floor of a six-storied R.C.C. building named 'Thondupling' otherwise known as L.I.C. building located at M. G. Marg, Gangtok but he had kept it closed for about"8 months. The Prescribed Authority issued notice No. 4/31/B/02-03/217/ Bldgs. dated 3-7-2002 (Annexure P-2) to the petitioner to appear and submit his written statement on 17-7-2002. On the date fixed the petitioner appeared before the Prescribed Authority but did not file any objection. He however submitted before it that as back as in 1979 he took the shop premises on rent and named it as "M/s. Gautam Mafatlal Showroom". The Prescribed Authority explained to him the grounds of complaint and asked him to produce evidence on the next date in support of his defence. In notice No. 1071/4(31)B/02-03/1430/Bldgs/56(N)/E) dated 2-8-2002 (Annexure P-3) the petitioner was further informed by the Prescribed Authority that local inspection was conducted which revealed that the showroom remained closed for more than 6 months for which he incurred the liability of being evicted under Section 7 of the Eviction Act. The petitioner was accordingly directed to appear on 12-8-2002 to produce evidence in support of his case. On the date fixed (12-8-2002) the petitioner and his counsel appeared and sought for time for filing written objection. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 26-8-2002 for filing of objection. The petitioner filed a lengthy written objection (Annexure P-5) on 26-8-2002 before the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter the opposite party No. 3 examined 8 witnesses including herself to prove her case. The petitioner besides examining himself as RW-1 examined 4 more witnesses in support of his defence. The Prescribed Authority after hearing counsel for both parties has passed the impugned order.

(3.) At this juncture we may note that the counsel for the petitioner has submitted a long note of arguments of 37 pages centring around the vires of Section 7 of the Eviction Act. The note appears to be the outcome of undigested readings of case-laws otherwise it would not have been burdened with irrelevant, indifferent, out of context and unnecessary materials.