Kishori Lal And Ors. vs Estate Officer And Ors.
1993 Latest Caselaw 366 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

(1) This order will dispose of Civil Writ PetitionsNos. 3145/85, 25 & 893/86 and 182/87.

(2) The petitioner was employed as Electrician by the erst-while Delhi Electric Supply & Traction Company Limited in the year 1942. The service of the petitioner was taken over by Delhi Central Electric Power Authority in the year 1948. On the formation of Delhi State Electricity Board with the introduction of Electricity Supply Act. 1948 the service of the petitioner was transferred to the Board on the same terms and conditions.The petitioner states that with the introduction of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 on 1/04/1958 the service of the petitioner was transferred to Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (Respondent No. 2 herein) a statutory body of the Delhi Municipal Corporation. Pursuant to a policy of the Government of India in the year 1934 which according to the petitioner provided accommodation for low income group, the erst-while Delhi State Electricity Board raised loan from Delhi Administration in the year 1957.The case of the petitioner is that these houses were built for the benefit of petitioner and the persons similarly situated. It is alleged that according to the policy the petitioner was to be sold one of the houses as per the policy and in the alternative the plea of the petitioner is that he was inducted as a tenant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme under which the accommodation was constructed. The petitioner retired from service on 30/04/1980. After his retirement respondent No. 2 Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner in respect of premises in question and the petitioner filed objections to the show cause notice but ex parte eviction order was passed by the EstateOfficer. The petitioner filed an appeal before Additional District Judge under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 (for short the Act). The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal vide order dated 2/12/1985. The petitioner hag challenged in this writ petition the dismissal of his appeal and has prayed for appropriate writ or write, order or directions quashing the order of the learnedAddl. District Judge, Delhi dated 2/12/1985 and that this Court should further hold that the premises in which the petitioner is living is not the public premises and, therefore, Public Premises Act is not applicable.Therefore, the petitioner has played for staying the dispossession from the premises in question.

(3) When this writ petition was filed on 20/12/1985, this Court stayed the dispossession of the petitioner from the premises in question.In the meanwhile, another petition was filed by some other employees of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking in this Court on similar grounds and this Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 14/03/1991.Against the said dismissal the employees preferred an appeal in the Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave Petition Nos. 9011. 9012, 9013.' 90149015 and 9016 of 199l Jagdish Prasad and Ors. v. M.C.D. through Commissioner & Other. The following observations were made by the Supreme Court s- "WE are thus clearly of the view that the petitioners have no legal right to claim any right of ownership and are not entitled to seek any mandamus from the Court in this regard. The High Court has given cogent reasons in dismissing the writ petitions and we find no ground to take a different view. In the result, we find no force in these Special Leave Petitions and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs."

(4) In view of the above finding of the Supreme Court, we are not required to give any detailed findings.

(5) We may also mention that the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner appearing before us that the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are not applicable to the premises in question are not tenable. Once it is admitted by the petitioner that he was allotted this accommodation being an employee of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, the occupation of the petitioner in the premises in question is limited to his tenure in service.

(6) In some of the petitions which raise similar questions this Court has stayed the proceedings initiated by Desu under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, we vacate that order and the proceedings under the said Act may be completed in accordance with law.

(7) In the result, the prayers of the petitioner are declined. The writ petition te dismissed. The interim order made earlier is vacated. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.