LAL DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JAMMU AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shrimati Lal Devi has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6.11.1970 of respondent No. 1 and the order dated 8-7-70 of respondent No. 2. She has averred that quarter No. 4 P.W.D. Cowshed Jammu was leased out to her husband Pt. Sada Nand Khajuria by the Estates Deptt. Jammu and after his death she occupied it as a tenant. The Estates Department never terminated the tenancy of the petitioner but recognized her as their tenant. She has been paying rent to the Department against proper receipts. The Government has now transferred the said quarter to Vidhya Peeth School Jammu. The Assistant Director Estates Jammu issued notice under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') against Pt. Sada Nand deceased who had died since long calling upon him to show cause as to why he be not evicted from the said quarter on the grounds (a) non-payment of rent (b) non-drawal of agreement with the Government and (c) transfer of the said quarter to Vidhya Peeth, Jammu. The petitioner submitted to the Assistant Director (Estates Officer) that she is a tenant of the said premises and that she was not in unauthorised occupation of the premises. Respondent No. 2 had accepted rent of Rs. 50.00 from the petitioner and had treated the petitioner as tenant of this quarter; but the respondent No. 2 inspite of the receipt of the rent of the quarter without hearing the petitioner issued notice under section 5 of the said Act for the eviction of the petitioner vide his order dated 8-7-70 (Annexure 'B'). Thereupon an appeal was preferred against the order of the Estates Officer before the District Judge Jammu who dismissed the appeal on 6th of November 1970 upholding the order of respondent No. 2, although he allowed the appeals of two other appellants on the same grounds and set aside the order of eviction. It is averred that the two impugned orders are illegal and null and void on the grounds (a) that the petitioner is a tenant of the quarter No. 4 (b) that the tenancy has never been terminated, (c) that no notice under section 4 was issued to the petitioner, (d) that the respondent No. 2 accepted rent from the petitioner on 25-11-69, (e) that even the non-payment of rent does not make the occupation of the premises as unauthorised, (f) that since long before the passing of the impugned order quarter No. 4 had been transferred to Vidya Peeth School Jammu and quarter No. 4 thus ceased to be the public premises. Order of eviction is therefore without jurisdiction. The petition is supported by an affidavit, annexures A, B & C relating to payment of rent, notice of eviction under section 5 and copies of judgments of the District Judge respectively have been filed alongwith the petition.

(2.) Mr. Kewal Krishan Gupta Assistant Director Estates has in his reply affidavit submitted that it is true that quarter No. 4 was leased out to the husband of the petitioner, but after the death or her husband the petitioner had no right to occupy the premises and the occupation as such has become unauthorised. Since the allotment stood automatically terminated on the death of her husband there was no need to terminate the tenancy which ceased to have existed. Mere payment of rent after the termination of tenancy did not renew the lease. It is admitted that the said quarter has been leased out to Vidhya Peeth Jammu. It is not denied that the petitioner paid the rent but it is submitted that such payment did not renew or continue the tenancy The rent received relates to period of termination of the lease. The petitioner was given opportunity to show cause. It was after considering those objections that notice under section 5 of the Act was issued. In the end it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.