Orissa High Court
Orissa Communist Party vs State Of Orissa & Others on 7 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RSA No.24 of 2014
Orissa Communist Party, .... Appellant
represented through its President
Ajeya Rout
Mr.S.D. Das, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa & Others .... Respondents
Mr.G.N.Rout
ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
Order
No. 07.12.2021
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under section 100 of
the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the
judgment dated 06.01.2004 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Bhubaneswar in R.F.A. No.5/57 of 2012/2008.
By the said judgment, while dismissing the First Appeal
filed by present Appellant under Section 96 of the Code in
challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2008 and
04.10.2008 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.521 of 2005 dismissing the suit
filed by it as Plaintiff has failed to get any such relief therein.
// 2 //
3. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion
and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as
they have been arraigned in the Suit.
4. The Plaintiff, a registered Regional Political Party with the
activities as such in the State, by filing the suit, has impeached the
order of the Government in G.A. Department communicated vide
letter no.10912 dated 01.08.2000 asserting it to be perspective,
void, nonest and contrary to the statutory law. With such prayer,
the Plaintiff has prayed for declaring the order as to the refusal on
the part of the Defendants-State to renew the license of the quarter
at Bhubaneswar as illegal, bad, discriminatory and revocable;
further prayer has also been made to direct the Defendants-State to
renew the license and deliver possession of the same to the Plaintiff
in cases he in the meantime is dispossessed. The suit with the
above prayer is based on the fact that the Defendants-State had
allotted a quarter bearing 5/1, Type-VI-B in Unit-III, Bhubaneswar
to the Plaintiff for its office to function therein for a period of three
years. The deed of agreement to that effect had been executed on
24.05.1997 and the Plaintiff with effect from 27.05.1997 occupied
the said quarter and started to run its office therein. Rent as fixed
was being paid. Thus being the State continuing, it is said that
although the license was to be automatically renewed, the
Defendants-State did not communicate anything as regards said
renewal. So, the Plaintiff, while continuing to pay the rent, wrote a
letter on 12.07.2000 to the Defendants-State making a request for
renewal of the license. After five years, on 27.06.2005, the
Defendants-State intimated the Plaintiff that he has no further right
to occupy the said quarter allotted to it and as the party in question
// 3 //
does not have the representation in 13th Assembly, which is
mandatory as per the policy for allotment of quarter to the Regional
Political Party. After issuing the said letter, no rent was received
from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff then made a request for revocation
of the said letter of the Defendants-State. However, the
Defendants-State, in turn, proceeded to initiate a proceeding for
eviction of the Plaintiff from the said allotted quarter terming the
occupation of the said quarter by the Plaintiff as unauthorized
under the provision of Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (in short, 'the Act of 1972')
vide OPP Case No.123 of 2005. The Plaintiff, entering appearance,
submitted its representation for renewal of the license inter alia
pleading therein that the G.A. letter no.0912 dated 01.08.2000 is
perspective in its effect and non-renewal of the license for the
quarter in occupation of the Plaintiff is nothing but an act of
discrimination when many others similarly situated with the
Plaintiff are enjoying the said benefits. Said request was turned
down. Therefore, the Plaintiff took the recourse before the Civil
Court in filing the suit and advancing the prayers as aforesaid.
The Defendants-State raised objection stating its action to
be right and in accordance with law. All such actions right from the
beginning till initiation of the OPP case and passing of the final
order are defended to be having sanction of law and as such valid
standing for being fully carried in to action. It is stated that the
Plaintiff has no right to retain the quarter any more.
5. Faced with the above rival case, the Trial Court has framed
seven issues. Coming to answer issue nos.(iv) and (v), the Trial
Court has taken a view that after expiry of the period of license,
// 4 //
mere acceptance of the rent and issuance of the receipts thereof
cannot be taken to be in pursuance of a fresh contract between the
parties and thus it is not permissible to say that despite expiry of
the period of license mentioned in Ext.A, the Plaintiff continued to
be occupy with that status under the Defendants. Coming to the
order of eviction passed in OPP case, the Trial Court has taken the
view that the suit for the reliefs claimed is barred under the
provision of section 14 of the Act of 1972. Accordingly, it has been
held that the said order of eviction is not liable to be questioned in
the Civil Court; more so when it does not fall within the very short
ambit and scope of interference by the Civil Court in respect of the
order passed under the said special statute. The suit thus having
been dismissed, the unsuccessful Plaintiff had carried an Appeal.
The First Appellate Court has agreed with the view taken by the
Trial Court. This concurrent findings of the Courts below are now
under challenge in this Second Appeal.
6. Mr.S.D.Das, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant
submits that the executive instruction vide letter no.0912 dated
01.08.2000 cannot override the Special Accommodation Rules,
1959, since the execution instruction has no statutory force. He,
therefore, submits that the courts below have erred in law by
proceeding to decide the matter in that light. It is also submitted
that the Defendants-State having accepted the rent up to July, 2005,
it would be deemed that the license was continuing and as such the
possession not being unauthorized, the order of eviction is nonest.
It is next submitted that the view taken by the Courts below that the
suit is hit under the provision of section 14 of the Act is not correct
and the Civil Court's jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code is not
// 5 //
at all ousted in the matter. He, therefore, submits that the Appeal be
admitted framing the above as the substantial question of law.
Mr.G.N.Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
Respondents submits all in favour of the judgments passed by the
courts below. He submits that the Plaintiff being the licensee and as
such with that status, after expiry of the period of license, his
possession, in spite of acceptance of the rent, cannot be taken to be
with that same status. He thus submits that the possession of the
Plaintiff in so far as the allotted quarter is concerned being
unauthorized after expiry of the period fixed under the original
license, rightly the proceeding under the Act of 1972 has been
initiated and finally the order of eviction having been passed
therein, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to sit over the same as if
an Appeal; more so when the said statute also provides the
Appellate forum for the aggrieved party to approach.
7. Keeping in view the above submissions, I have carefully
gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below.
8. Admittedly, the Plaintiff is a licensee under the Defendants-
State and thus he has not been clothed with any interest in respect
of the said quarter and it is only limited to the extent of the
permission to occupy on certain conditions. The license has no
right to possess after the expiry of the period of license as fixed and
the possession of the license is under the control of the owner. The
Defendants-State has not renewed the license for any further term
with effect from the year 2000. Merely for payment of rent, after
the expiry of the term of license, it cannot be said that the term of
the license has been extended further. The original license having
// 6 //
not been renewed, the occupation which continues in the hands of
the license is unauthorized since the licensee has a duty to hand
over the possession of the lincensed premises to the licensor after
expiry of the period of license. The non-renewal of the licnese after
expiry of the period of license was not required to be intimated to
the licensee in writing so as to put an end to the nature of
occupation of the license in respect of the premises in its
occupation and term it as unauthorized.
As regards entertaining of the suit for the reliefs claimed,
section 14 of the Act, 1972 clearly says that no suit shall be
initiated in respect of the matter of dispute coming under the
purview of the said Act. It is not in dispute that the order passed by
the Authority under the Act of 1972 in directing eviction of the
Plaintiff from said quarter has attained its finality. No such
evidence has been tendered to show that the Authority in passing
the order has not followed the principles of natural justice nor that
the established legal procedure in conducting the proceeding right
from the beginning till the end have been violated as the order of
eviction has been passed.
9. In that view of the matter, the Civil Courts jurisdiction to
entertain the suit for the reliefs claimed which if being granted to
the Plaintiff would lead to nullify the final order passed by the
competent authority under the Act of 1972, in my considered
opinion is not entertainable.
10. For all the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel
for the Appellant that there arise the substantial questions of law as
// 7 //
stated at paragraph-6 cannot be countenanced with. It is thus held
that the Appeal does not merit admission.
11. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to
costs is, however, passed.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Basu
