- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Saran appearing for the respondents.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24th April 2006 passed by Estate Officer of Northern Eastern Railway. It has further been prayed that the petition dated 21-9-1995 filed by the respondents under Section 4/7 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants for short '1971, Act') Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') be quashed. Petitioner claims to be licensee of a piece of land from the Railway Authority. In this case he has been paying the rent to the respondents regularly. The respondents filed an application under Section 4/7 1971 Act for eviction of the petitioner and for realization of damages. The case of the respondents in the application is that the respondents are the owner of land and the petitioner has unauthorizingly occupied the said land, which needs to be vacated. While the proceedings before the Estate Officer were going on, by an application the jurisdiction of the Estate officer was questioned by the petitioner. The case of the respondents before the Estate Officer was that there is no agreement in existence between the parties; hence the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of 1971, Act. The Estate Officer held that since the matter relates to unauthorized occupation of the public premises the Court has jurisdiction. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has come up in the writ petition. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the writ petition, contended that the agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondents the copy of which is not with the petitioner. He submits that respondents are withholding the said agreement. He contends that the said agreement contains an arbitration clause and in view of the arbitration clause the matter ought to be resolved through arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that there being arbitration clause, the proceedings under Section 4/7 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) 1971 Act cannot be proceeded and are liable to be quashed.
(3.) SRI Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court reported in 2000 (8) SCC 151, Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Financial Ltd. & Anr. . The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that there is no agreement between the petitioner and respondents. He has referred to the counter-affidavit, in para Nos. 5, 16, 17, and 19 whereof specific averments have been made that the petitioner did not enter into any agreement about the land in question. He submits that although in para 5 of the C. A. there is specific averment that he did not enter into the agreement with the railway administration, in reply to the said paragraph neither any date of such agreement nor any details have been given. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had already stated that the petitioner does not have any copy of the agreement and the same is only with the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a proforma of the agreement has already been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, in which the agreements are entered with. Sri Govind Saran further contended that any arbitration clause in agreement does not preclude the respondents in initiating the proceedings under Section 4/7 of the 1971 Act.;