SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition seeking various reliefs, in effect challenging an order granting eviction under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.P. Act"), primarily on the ground of violation of natural justice. The petitioners were not parties to the said proceeding.
(2.) It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that, in view of the respondent no.1 having admitted that the petitioners have been in possession of the disputed premises, the petitioners were necessary parties to the proceeding under Section 5(1) of the P.P. Act. In fact, the respondent no.1 had sought an amendment to its eviction petition to implead the petitioner no. 1 (also referred to as "Big Bazaar") as a party to the proceeding, by an application dated December 12, 2014. In the said application, the respondent no.1 admitted the petitioner no.1 to be "currently in occupation" of the suit premises. However, vide order dated November 30, 2015, it was held by the Estate Officer that the impleadment of the petitioners was not "strictly necessitated in the scheme of the Act", since the orders under Section 5(1) and Section 7(2) of the P.P. Act bound whosoever was in occupation. The premise of the said finding, it is argued, was bad in law, since the eviction order would directly affect the present petitioners, who were in admitted occupation of the premises-in-question.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues, by placing reliance on the judgment of Krishna Ram Hahale (Dead) by his Lrs. vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, reported at (1989)4 SCC 131, that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had the right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. The said judgment was rendered in connection with a proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.;