Piara Singh and Others vs Chandigarh Administration and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—In this petition, challenge is to the action of the respondent-authorities in proceeding to evict the petitioners from the premises in question without issuing any notice or without following the procedure as laid down under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short 1971 Act).

It has been averred in the petition that the petitioners were inducted as tenants by Kamlesh Inder Singh who is owner of house in dispute. One R.K. Thakur (respondent No. 5 herein) was also one of the tenants on the ground floor of the said house. Respondent-Administration vide order dated 24.11.1991 proceeded to resume the site under House No. 2019, Sector 15 Chandigarh on the ground of misuse by R.K. Thakur and its owner, Kamlesh Inder Singh. The house was resumed as the Authorities found that the same was being used for the purpose other than for which it was build. Pursuant to order of resumption, the Estate Officer proceeded to issue notice u/s 4(1) of the Act. Order u/s 5 of the 1971 Act was passed. Appeal by R.K. Thakur against the order was dismissed by the District Judge and the writ petition too came to be dismissed. It is the case of the petitioners that under the garb of the order, the Estate Officer proceeded to take possession of the house despite the fact that no notice under the 1971 Act was served on the petitioners. Petitioners have averred that they have been in possession as tenants and on the date when order was passed or the premises were sealed, they were continuing as tenants. At the time of motion hearing, counsel for the petitioners referred to some material for showing that petitioners were in occupation of the premises as tenants. Counsel was asked to give to counsel opposite the advance copies of documents which he wanted to rely upon. Some of the documents which have been shown relate only to petitioners 2 and 4. There is no material in regard to occupation of petitioners 1 and 3. Opposed to this, the case of respondent No. 4 is that the petitioners were never in occupation of the premises and if at all they were in occupation, they were at the instance of R.K. Thakur against whom proceedings have become final. According to the counsel, persons who have come in occupation at the instance of tenant cannot have better rights than tenant against whom proceedings have become final.

It is the admitted case that the premises have been sealed and no-one presently is in occupation of the premises. In these proceedings, it is very difficulty to ascertain as to whether petitioners were tenants under respondent No. 4 or were in occupation when notice u/s 4 of the 1971 Act was served or order u/s 5 of the 1971 Act was passed u/s 5 of the 1971 Act. Since the documents which have been shown are not being admitted by the respondents, it is not possible to give finding either way. As it has been alleged by the petitioners that they were in occupation as tenants, the best course to my mind would be to ask the Estate Officer to hold an enquiry to determine whether petitioners 2 and 4 were occupying the premises as tenants under respondent No. 4 and were in occupation as such at the time when order u/s 5 of the 1971 Act was passed or when the premises were sealed. It is so ordered. In case the Estate Officer, on evidence which the parties may choose to produce before him, finds that petitioners 2 and 4 were never in occupation as tenants under respondent No. 4. this writ petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. If the Estate Officer finds otherwise, then order qua petitioners 2 and 4 shall stand quashed because it is the case of petitioners 2 and 4 that they were in occupation of rooms No. 2 and 3 on the second floor of the house. In this situation, the Estate Officer shall be at liberty to proceed against petitioners 2 and 4 in accordance with law. As regards other petitioners, the petition shall stand dismissed.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Estate Officer on 28.8.1995, on which date he shall give one opportunity each to petitioners 2 and 4 and respondent No. 4 to lead evidence, if any, and the decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within one month thereafter.

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

No Costs.