Zila Sainik Board Vs. Surinder Kumar and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2002
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21727/2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21727/2000)
Petitioner: Zila Sainik Board
Respondent: Surinder Kumar and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2002
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21727/2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21727/2000)
Judges: V.N. KHARE & ASHOK BHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 08, 2002
Head Note:
PUBLIC PREMISES/RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent) Recovery Act, 1973
Eviction from public premises – Freedom fighter and ex-serviceman – If cannot be evicted from public premises in his occupation. Held that there is no provision in the Act that such a person cannot be evicted. Appeal allowed but time to vacate granted. (Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The proceedings for eviction were initiated against Hans Raj – predecessor of respondents 1-4 under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), who was admittedly occupying a public premises. The predecessor of respondents having found to be an unauthorised occupant, an order of eviction was passed by the estate officer. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the appeal merely on the ground that Hans Raj (now deceased) happened to be a freedom fighter and ex-serviceman and, therefore, his eviction was improper. The appellant herein filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. The said petition was dismissed and the order of the appellate authority was affirmed. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the appellate authority as confirmed by the High Court that Hans Raj being a freedom fighter and ex-serviceman, his eviction from the premises was improper, is erroneous. There is no provision in the Act that an unauthorised occupant, who is either a freedom fighter or an ex-army man cannot be evicted from a public premises. We, accordingly set aside the judgment under challenge and allow the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
5. After the order was dictated, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 stated that in case the respondents are required to vacate the premises immediately, it shall create great hardship to them and, therefore, some time may be granted to vacate the premises. On instruction of Major MPS Kakra, learned counsel for the appellant stated that appellant has no objection to grant some time to the respondents to vacate the premises. We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall not be evicted from the premises in dispute till 31.12.2002 on their filing usual undertaking in this Court within six weeks from today. In case, undertaking is not filed within the stipulated time, this part of the order shall stand automatically vacated.
1. Leave granted.
2. The proceedings for eviction were initiated against Hans Raj – predecessor of respondents 1-4 under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), who was admittedly occupying a public premises. The predecessor of respondents having found to be an unauthorised occupant, an order of eviction was passed by the estate officer. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the appeal merely on the ground that Hans Raj (now deceased) happened to be a freedom fighter and ex-serviceman and, therefore, his eviction was improper. The appellant herein filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. The said petition was dismissed and the order of the appellate authority was affirmed. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the appellate authority as confirmed by the High Court that Hans Raj being a freedom fighter and ex-serviceman, his eviction from the premises was improper, is erroneous. There is no provision in the Act that an unauthorised occupant, who is either a freedom fighter or an ex-army man cannot be evicted from a public premises. We, accordingly set aside the judgment under challenge and allow the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
5. After the order was dictated, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 stated that in case the respondents are required to vacate the premises immediately, it shall create great hardship to them and, therefore, some time may be granted to vacate the premises. On instruction of Major MPS Kakra, learned counsel for the appellant stated that appellant has no objection to grant some time to the respondents to vacate the premises. We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall not be evicted from the premises in dispute till 31.12.2002 on their filing usual undertaking in this Court within six weeks from today. In case, undertaking is not filed within the stipulated time, this part of the order shall stand automatically vacated.
