Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 935 (MP)

Motilal Pandey v. Union of India (UOI)

2003-08-01

S.K.PANDE

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision under Section 115, CPC is directed against the order dated 31-8-2000, passed by 9th ADJ, Jabalpur in MCA No. 70/99. ( 2. ) GOVERNMENT Accommodation No. 378/w "p" Type, Ordnance Factory, Khamariya has been allotted to the applicant Motilal, being an employee. Vide order dated 2-11-98 (Annexure P-2), this allotment was revoked and the applicant was directed to vacate the premises within 15 days time. Since applicant failed to comply with the order aforesaid, proceedings under Section 5 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to the "act" for convenience) commenced against him by the Estate Officer. Notice under Section 4 (Annexure A-4) was served. Applicant did not appear before Estate Officer. Order under Section 5 of the Act accordingly was passed and applicant was served with the order (Annexure A-3 ). Being aggrieved the applicant preferred MCA No. 70/99 in the Court of 9th ADJ, Jabalpur, the appeal was dismissed vide impugned order 31-8-2000, hence this revision. ( 3. ) IT has been contended that on memo of appeal MCA No. 70/99 non-applicant No. 2 submitted reply (Annexure A-6) and disclosed the reason for terminating the license vide order dated 2-11-98 (Annexure A-2 ). In substance non-applicant No. 2 submitted :- " that, the applicant and his family member committed nuisance in the area and always use filthy words against the neighbour on pity matters and threatened with dire consequences. It has also been reported that the wife of the applicant has a loose character and her activities disturb the area and she also intimidates the neighbours. " "considering the past history and present joint complaint of 21 residents, the respondent No. 2 has terminated the license of Qr. No. 378/w "p" Type allotted to the applicant. These allegations seeking eviction of the applicant were not disclosed in the notice dated 1-12-98 (Annexure A-4) issued under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, applicant had no opportunity to rebut the allegation. On the basis of notice (Annexure A-4), the proceedings commenced, was not legal. ( 4. ) ADMITTEDLY, in response to notice dated 1-12-98 (Annexure P-4) under Section 4 applicant did not appear before the Estate Officer. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of order dated 2-11-98 (Annexure A-2), passed by General Manager. By this order, the license of the applicant to occupy Qr. ( 4. ) ADMITTEDLY, in response to notice dated 1-12-98 (Annexure P-4) under Section 4 applicant did not appear before the Estate Officer. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of order dated 2-11-98 (Annexure A-2), passed by General Manager. By this order, the license of the applicant to occupy Qr. No. 378/w "p" Type, East Land Ordnance Factory Estate, Khamariya has been revoked. There was no necessity for the General Manager to hear the applicant in the matter of revocation of license. The license of the applicant was revoked on the ground that the applicant and family members created nuisance in the area and always used filthy words against the neighbours. It has also been reported that the wife of the applicant is a lady of loose character and her activities disturb the area and she also intimidates neighbours. Considering the past history and present complaint of 21 residents, the General Manager was pleased to revoke the license of the applicant. After the revocation of license the possession of the applicant has become unauthorised. On the basis of this unauthorised occupation, proceedings under Section 5 of the Act were rightly commenced and there was no illegality in the notice dated 1-12-98 (Annexure A-4) as is described that the applicant since has not complied with the order dated 2-11-98 enclosed, he is considered to be in unauthorised occupation of the premises. ( 5. ) ORDER of eviction (Annexure A-3) passed by Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Act does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity and has rightly been affirmed by ADJ, vide impugned order passed in MCA No. 70/99. ( 6. ) REVISION fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost.