Smt Niamat Kaur Anand And Ors. vs Director Of Industries And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 1076 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking the quashing of three orders/notices. The first order is dated 11.06.1987, whereby the petitioner's lease was purportedly cancelled and was determined. The second is a show cause notice dated 18.11.2002 issued under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") by the Estate Officer and the third is the order dated 30.06.2003 passed by the Estate Officer u/s 5 (1) of the said Act requiring the petitioner to be evicted from the premises in question.

2. The grounds urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are that in 1987 when the lease was purportedly cancelled and was terminated there existed no lease as such and the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was governed by a subsequent hire purchase arrangement. The lease was no longer in operation. Thus, according to him, the cancellation/determination was of no effect in law. These facts were not placed before the Estate Officer. What happened was that after the show cause notice was issued, the counsel for the petitioner entered appearance before the Estate Officer and thereafter did not appear and merely sought an adjournment. The Estate Officer did not grant the adjournment and passed the order dated 30.06.2003. The petitioner, under the impression that the show cause notice and the subsequent orders were ex-facie bad, came straightway to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. However, there is a complete remedy provided to the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act by way of appeal before the District Judge. That remedy has not been availed of and/or exhausted. The petitioner ought to have taken that remedy first before approaching this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. However, learned senior counsel submits that the appeal may have become time-barred.

2. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is permitted to file the appeal under Section 9 of the said Act before District Judge and it is made clear that limitation will not be taken as a ground for not entertaining the appeal. The petitioner is directed to file the appeal, if she so feels, within 10 days of this order. Till such time, the respondents shall not create any third party rights or interest in the said premises. The grounds urged in this writ petition will be available to the petitioner in the appeal. If the petitioner does not file the appeal within 10 days, then the interim protection given to her shall terminate automatically.

3. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.

dusty.