SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- V.N. Khare and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1079 of 2000. D/d. 14.2.2000.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - Appellant

Versus

Sunita Mehra and others - Respondents

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Section 4 - Jurisdiction - Order neither challenged in writ petition nor forming part of record of case could not be quashed in writ jurisdiction - In present case respondent filed writ petition against eviction notice issued under Public Premises Act - Petition dismissed for non-prosecution but later restoring it - Meanwhile Estate Officer passing eviction order against respondent - Respondent neither amended petition at any stage to challenge eviction order nor appending eviction order as part of record of case - Single Bench dismissing writ petition - Held, Division Bench not justified in allowing respondent's LPA and SETTING aside the eviction order.

[Para 3]

ORDER

N. Santosh Hegde, J. - Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is the owner of the premises. In the year 1973, the appellant granted licence to the respondent herein for running a cafeteria in the premises. Subsequently, the appellant revoked the said licence and wrote to the Estate Officer appointed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) for taking proceedings for eviction of the respondent. Consequently, the Estate Officer issued a notice to the respondent. It is at that stage the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 before the High Court of Calcutta challenging the aforesaid notice. In the said notice, a time-bound interim order was also passed. Subsequently, it was ordered that the interim order was to continue till the disposal of the writ petition. In the meantime, the Registry of the High Court reported that the respondent (sic herein) had not taken steps for service on the respondents in the writ petition. The High Court granted time to the respondent to comply with the default notice. Since no steps were taken within the time, the High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. As the writ petition was dismissed, interim order also stood vacated. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the Estate Officer proceeded with the case against the respondent. Subsequently, when the respondent learnt that the writ petition has been dismissed, she filed an application for restoration of the case. On that application, the writ petition was restored. However, on 24-2-1982, the Estate Officer passed the eviction order and as a result of the said order the appellant took possession of the said premises. Ultimately, the writ petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, who dismissed the said writ petition. The respondent thereafter filed a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench, Calcutta High Court took the view that since the respondent was denied the opportunity of hearing before the Estate Officer, the order of eviction passed on 24-2-1982 was bad in law. Therefore, the said order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The Estate Officer was directed to proceed afresh after giving opportunity to the respondent. It is against the said order of the High Court the appellant is in appeal before us.

3. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether there being no challenge to the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer under the Act, in the writ petition was the High Court justified in SETTING aside that order in appeal. It was urged that after the order of eviction was passed the writ petition was not amended by challenging the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer. No ground as regards its invalidity was also stated. It is not disputed that the writ petition was not amended after the order of eviction was passed by the Estate Officer. Even in the letters patent appeal, the order of eviction was not made to form part of the records of the case and under such circumstances the Division Bench of the High Court was not legally justified in SETTING aside the order dated 24-2-1982 passed by the Estate Officer. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

4. After the order was dictated, the learned counsel for the respondent states that in case the respondent is required to vacate the premises in question immediately, she would be put to great hardship and, therefore, one year's time may be granted to vacate the premises. To this, learned counsel for the appellant has no objection. We, therefore, direct that the respondent shall not be dispossessed from the premises in dispute for a period of one year i.e. till 13-2-2001 provided she files the usual undertaking within four weeks from today. The appellant shall restore the electricity and water supply within 10 days.

5. The respondent shall pay the electricity and water charges.

Appeal allowed.