Nanak Pamnani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2708 MP

                                   1

         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    WP-10427-2021
       (NANAK   PAMNANI Vs THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS )

JABALPUR
DATED : 25.06.2021
      Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Pradeep Singh, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
      Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
      By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the eviction
order dated 15.03.2021 passed under the provisions of the Madhya
Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (for short 'the
Bedakhali Adhiniyam') as affirmed by the appellate order dated
28.04.2021.
      Facts

in nut-shell are that the petitioner was allotted shop bearing No.14/25A at Pari Bazar, Bhopal on 27.7.1993 for a period of 10 years. He was served with the notice dated 19.10.2020 initiating proceedings for eviction and requiring him to show cause under the Bedakhali Adhiniyam. The petitioner had filed reply to the show cause notice on 24.10.2020 and thereafter the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 was passed for evicting the petitioner. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the appellate authority by order dated 28.04.2021 has dismissed the appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an unauthorized occupant but he is a tenant holding over as he is depositing the rent even after the lease period is over. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing because in the show cause notice, it was not alleged that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition by submitting that undisputedly the petitioner is occupying the public premises and the lease has already been terminated and the area is

required for the larger public interest and the doctrine of prejudice is attracted while considering the issue of natural justice.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that the shop in question was allotted to the petitioner for a period of 10 years. The said period had come to an end on 20.07.2005 but even thereafter the petitioner had not vacated the premises and had continued in possession thereof unauthorizedly, therefore, eviction proceedings have been initiated under the Bedakhali Adhiniyam. The submission of counsel for the petitioner based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of R.V. Bhupal Prasad Vs. State of A.P. and others, (1995) 5 SCC 698 that the petitioner is a tenant holding over cannot be accepted because nothing has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner to show that after 2005 any consent was given by the competent authority to continue the petitioner as tenant or the alleged rent was deposited by the petitioner with the knowledge and consent of the competent authority.

So far as the issue of non-compliance of principle of natural justice is concerned, the petitioner was duly served with the show cause notice dated 19.10.2020 and he had also filed the reply to said notice. The show cause notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the Bedakhali Adhiniyam, which itself mentions that such a notice is given to the unauthorized occupant of any public premises. Hence, it cannot be held that the principle of natural justice has been violated. Even otherwise no prejudice is shown by the petitioner.

That apart, the record reflects that the petitioner is sought to be evicted from the premises in question because in the entire area a shopping complex is to be constructed by the B.D.A. for which an agreement with the construction company has already been entered into. The appellate authority has duly mentioned in the order that

after the construction of the complex the petitioner will have an opportunity to participate in the auction proceeding for fresh allotment of shop.

The record further reflects that petitioner's prayer for temporary injunction has been rejected by trial Court.

In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned eviction order as affirmed by the appellate order does not suffer from any error and no case for interference is made out.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

                            (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)                  (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                 JUDGE                                    JUDGE
DV


Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2021.06.28 10:44:25
+05'30'