- (1.) In this group of petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the proceedings initiated against them under the U.P. Public Services (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). These petitions relates to the allotment of the shops/canteen in the Naveen Mandi Sthal Saharanpur and Muzaffarnagar. Since the issues involved is one and the same, these groups of writ petitions are being decided together. For convenience, the facts in the case of Dharamveer for Saharanpur District and writ petition of Prem Chandra for Muzaffarnagar district are being taken into consideration. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner is a tenant of the shop on the basis of an allotment order issued by the Chairman of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. Initially, the tenancy was on a month to month basis, on a rent of Rs.600/- per month, but later on, it was enhanced to Rs.1840/- per month. It is alleged that pursuant to the allotment order, the petitioner was paying the rent regularly. It transpires that the Regional Deputy Director of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad issued an order dated 5.9.2002 directing that the shops would now be allotted on an auction basis for a period of one year. Based on the aforesaid order, the Mandi Samiti issued a notice dated 17.10.2003 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, determining the tenancy of the petitioner of the shop in question. In the notice, it was contended that the tenancy was being terminated on the ground that the shop would now be allotted by way of a public auction. Since the petitioner did not vacate the shop and did not hand over vacant possession to the respondents, the respondents filed an application under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Act for the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question. In the application, it was alleged that on the basis of an order dated 5.9.2002 issued by the Regional Director for auctioning the shop, the tenancy of the petitioner was determined through a notice and that his continuance in the shop, after the period in question, became unauthorised and was therefore liable to be evicted as an unauthorised occupant from the shop in question under the said Act.
(2.) The petitioner contested the matter and filed an objection alleging that the proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the Act was illegal, inasmuch as, the notice under Section 4 of the Act did not specify the grounds for the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question. It was contended that this was a mandatory requirement prescribed under the law and in the absence of any ground being mentioned, the application of the respondent was not maintainable and was also defective and consequently, no proceedings could be initiated for the eviction of the petitioner on the basis of the said notice.
(3.) The prescribed authority allowed the application filed by the respondents and directed the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question. An appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the legality of the aforesaid two orders.;