Dharam Narain and Others vs Additional District Magistrate and Others

R.L. Gulati, J.—There is a housing colony at Kanpur known as Babupura Extcntion No. I, which has been established under the U.P. Industrial Housing Act, 1955. The Petitioners inducted certain unauthorised persons in the quarters allotted to them. Action was taken against them u/s 12(2) of the aforesaid Act and the allotments in their favour was cancelled. Thereafter they were served with notices of demand to pay damages for the use and occupation of the quarters. Notices for their eviction was also served under the U.P. Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952. The Petitioner have challenged these notices in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

u/s 23 of the U.P. Industrial Housing Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), damages can be recovered from unauthorised occupants and if such damages are not paid within the time allowed, that can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Sub-section (2) of Section 23. After the allotments in favour of the Petitioners were cancelled, they became unauthorised occupants and they were liable to pay damages and, as such, no fault can be found with the demand for damages.

However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that Section 23 of the Act has since been repealed and proceedings for recovery of damages cannot be taken under Sub-section (2) of Section 23. It is true that Section 23 of the Act was repealed by Section 19 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act No. 22 of 1972 but Section 20 of that Act saves the pending proceedings under the repealed provisions. It saves all notices issued, evictions ordered and damages assessed or proceedings initiated for the recovery of such damages. In view of this saving provision the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be said to have been nullified.

As regards the eviction notices, admittedly they have been issued not under the Industrial Housing Act but under the provisions of U.P. Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952, as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit of J.S.P. Pande. A Division Bench of this Court in Daulat Singh v. Addl. District Magistrate Sp. A. No. 81 of 1971, decided on 18-2-1972 (Alld.) has held that notices of eviction could not be issued under the U.P. Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952 in respect of Houses governed by the U.P. Industrial Housing Act. As such, these notices are bad and are liable to be quashed.

However, I find that Petitioner No. 7 Braj Nandan Dixit was permitted to withdraw from the writ petition vide this Court''s order dated 25-9-1974 and the name of Balgovind Singh Pandey Petitioner No. 10 was deleted from the array of the Petitioners. The writ-petition is, dismissed so far as Petitioner Nos. 7 and 10 are concerned.

In the result petition succeeds in part. Eviction notices issued to the Petitioners under the U.P. Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952 are quashed. The parties will bear their own costs.