- (1.) THE applicant has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of. the Code of civil Procedure praying that the order, dated 20-3-1963, of ejectment of the appellant-applicant from the suit premises which was initially passed by the Estate officer. South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur. and which was, on appeal, confirmed by the District Judge. Raigarh, be set aside, and the Estate Officer be directed to proceed with the case according to law
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the applicant Hargovind Sharma who carries on his business under the name and style of 'ramavtar Hargovind Sharma' was given a tea stall contract at Kharasia railway station, from 1-1-1961 for a term of three years. On account of extension of the railway platform, the land on which the tea stall originally was to be located could not be given to the applicant and he was given some other land behind the railway station He was put in occupation of that land under the orders of the Assistant Engineer, South Eastern Railway, Raigarh, dated 6-3-1962 It is urged on behalf of the applicant that thereafter, only the formality of preparing a written agreement of lease was to be gone through The applicant constructed some structure over the land According to him, it was a valuable construction costing him about Rs. 5000/- However, the District Engineer, subsequently refused to accord his consent to this grant of lease to the applicant and an order was passed on 31-12-62 requiring him to show cause by 28-1-1963 as to why he should not be evicted from the said premises, his occupation being held to be unauthorised On 4-2-1963. actually the Estate Officer in pursuance of the said show cause notice purported to determine his lease of the said premises.
(3.) SHRI A. H. Saifi, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that he (the applicant) was not an unauthorised occupant of the said premises within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act. 1958 (hereinafter called the Act), that the notice of ejectment given to the applicant was not valid for the reasons that it was not actually received by him and that it was not a clear 10 days' notice as contemplated under section 4 (2) (b) of the Act; that no proper opportunity to adduce evidence was given to the applicant and, therefore, the orders passed against him were vitiated.;