AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Lakshman Uraon, JJ.—The appellant-Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL for short) has challenged the judgment passed by learned single Judge dated 4th February 2000 CWJC 2183 of 1999 (R) whereby and where-under the learned single Judge held that the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro exceeded in exercise of his power deciding the right of the writ petitioner M/s. Nav Bharat Motor Finance (M/s. N.B.M. for short) vis-a-vis respondent SAIL (appellant herein) under the lease agreement and set aside the order dated 24th July, 1999 as was passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in M.P. Case No. 27/98.
The dispute in this appeal relates to land and building having an area of 105 square meters comprised within plot No. B-14, Sector-IX, Bokaro Steel City.
The case of the writ petitioner M/s. N.B.M. Finance was that the SAIL granted the lease of 93 years in respect of plot No. B- 14, Sector-IX, Bokaro Steel City by registered deed of lease dated 29th April, 1982 for the residential cum commercial purposes. The writ petitioner M/s. N.B.M. Finance constructed house over the plot in question and started paying rent to the lesser, namely SAIL and claimed its right and title over the land in question being the lessee.
The case of appellant SAIL was that the terms and conditions of the lease agreement was violated. The lease stood terminated on account of unauthorised construction started by one Mr. K.D. Prasad an attorney-holder of the writ petitioner -M/s. N.B.M. Finance. In this background, a proceeding was initiated in the court of Estate Officer against Mr. K.D. Prasad for his eviction from the premises in question.
Admittedly, in the case filed by appellant-SAIL before the Estate Officer, neither lessee writ petitioner-M/s. N.B.M. Finance nor any partner of the firm were made party rather it was filed against Mr. K.D. Prasad.
It came to the notice of the learned single Judge that the Estate Officer passed the eviction order against aforesaid Mr. K.D. Prasad under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 without notice to the lessee. In spite of aforesaid fact the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in M.P. Case No. 27/98 asked the lessee writ petitioner M/s. N.B.M. Finance to remove encroachment. In this background, the learned single Judge set aside the order dated 24th of July, 1999 passed in M.P. Case No. 27/98.
We find no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 4th February, 2000 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No. 2183 of 1999 (R), the lessee writ petitioner/M/s. N.B.M. Finance having not given opportunity of hearing by the Estate Officer.
However, taking into consideration that K.D. Prasad is neither the lessee nor the partner of the firm we fell that the issue relating to eviction of unauthorised occupant requires determination.
The case is remitted to the Estate Officer, Bokaro who will decide the issue under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
The lessee writ petitioner-M/s. N.B.M. Finance is given liberty to file objection, if any, before the Estate Officer, Bokaro within one month.
Thereafter the Estate Officer, Bokaro will determine the issue after the notice to the concerned party without being prejudiced with the judgment passed by the learned single Judge or in this appeal.
The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
However, there will be no order as to costs.