Delhi High Court
Lodge Juman vs Union Of India And Ors. on 30 August, 2019
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.08.2019
+ W.P.(C) 9457/2019
LODGE JUMAN ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohinder Singh with Mr. Ankur Goel and
Mr. Lovekesh Aggarwal, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Ms. Neha Garg and
Ms. Nehul Sharma, Advocates for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.38894/2019 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 9457/2019 & CM APPL.38893/2019 (stay)
1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing
for the respondents.
2. Petitioner inter alia seeks quashing of notices issued under
Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Public Premises
Act) by the Estate Officer, L& DO seeking eviction of a premises
measuring 0.159 measures known as Jamuna Lodge, Civil Lines,
Delhi.
3. Grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner
primarily is that after a reply was filed there is an apprehension that
no hearing or an opportunity to produce evidence is going to be
granted to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the L&DO
relied on the earlier proceedings initiated under the Public Premises
Act against Masonic Club. He submits that the petitioner has no
concern with Masonic Club, which is an organisation independent of
the petitioner and since the petitioner was not a party to the earlier
proceedings, no order passed in those proceedings can prejudice the
petitioner and petitioner has taken appropriate objections to the said
effect in his reply filed before the Estate Officer.
5. Section 5 (1) of the Public Premises Act reads as under:-
"5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants.--
(1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by
any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and
any evidence produced by him in support of the same and
after personal hearing, if any, given under clause (b) of
sub-section (2) of section 4, the estate officer is satisfied
that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation,
the estate officer may make an order of eviction, for
reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public
premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be
specified in the order, by all persons who may be in
occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy
of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other
conspicuous part of the public premises."
6. Section 5(1) of the Public Premises Act stipulates that if after
considering a cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance to a
notice under Section 4 and any evidence produced by him in support
of the same and after personal hearing, the Estate Officer is satisfied
that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the Estate
Officer shall make an order of eviction for reasons to be recorded
therein.
7. Section 7 (3) of the Public Premises Act reads as under:-
"7. Power to require payment of rent or damages in
respect of public premises.--
(1) *****
(2) *****
(3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
shall be made against any person until after the issue of
a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to
show cause within such time as may be specified in the
notice, why such order should not be made, and until his
objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in
support of the same, have been considered by the estate
officer.
8. Section 7(3) of the Public Premises Act lays down that no order
under sub Section (1) and sub Section (2) shall be made against any
person until after issuance of a notice in writing calling upon him to
show cause as to why the order should not be made and until his
objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support
thereof has been considered by the Estate Officer.
9. Reading of Section 5(1) and Section 7 (3) of the Public
Premises Act shows that no order of eviction and for recovery of rent
and damages can be made unless a person has been given a show
cause notice and if a reply has been filed and cause has been shown
unless an opportunity of producing evidence and hearing has been
granted.
10. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that apprehension
expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is mis-founded at
this stage.
11. The Estate Officer is obliged under Section 5(1) and Section
7(3) of the Public Premises Act to afford an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and in case a cause is shown to produce evidence in
support of the cause shown. Further, the Estate Officer cannot pass an
order without giving the said opportunity as stipulated by Section 5(1)
and 7(3) of the Public Premises Act. The order has to be a speaking
order and to be passed after grant of a personal hearing.
12. In this view of the matter, the objections raised by the petitioner
shall be duly considered by the Estate Officer, in accordance with law,
prior to passing any order.
13. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above directions.
14. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
expressed any opinion on the merits of the contention of either party.
All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
15. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 30, 2019/st
