M. MOHAMMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are five appeals against the learned single judge in five different miscellaneous petitions , under the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) . The appellants in appeals No 214 to 217 of 1979 were the members of the Defense Services and the appellants in appeal No 207 of 1979 are the heirs and the legal representatives of one M.K. Kapoor who was a member of the Defense Services . The premises which are the subject matter of the appeals were admittedly allotted by the Central Government to these members of the Defence Services because they were on its service and on the condition that they would vacate the premise when they retire from service. However, in spite of their retirement , they refused to vacate the same . Hence under the Act the proceedings for evicting them were started against them before the Estate Officer. In the proceedings they took the plea that the premises in question were not ' public Premises' within the meaning of the said Act and therefore the authority under the said Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the said eviction proceedings . This plea failed before the Estate Officer . The petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under the act. The Appellate Authority i.e. The Principal Judge , City Civil Court , Bombay dismissed their appeals . The petitioners then filed writ petitions on the Original Side of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution . The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned judge . Hence the present appeals.

(2.) THE only question that falls for consideration in all these appeals is whether the premises in question are ' public Premises' within the meaning of S. 2(e) of the said Act. Admittedly , the premises in question are not owned by the Central Government nor are they requisitioned by them . However, it is the case of the Government that they are ' public premises' firstly because they have been taken on lease from their owners and secondly because in any event , they ' belong to the Central Government'. According to them further the appellants who are either the allottees from them or claiming under the allottee have no right to challenge the basis on which the Government came in possession of the same. On the other hand it is the contention of the appellants that there is no valid lease in favour of the Government nor has the Government the absolute right of the user of the said premises and hence the proceedings under the said Act are not maintainable against them. Since in all these appeals the contentions raised are the same they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) APPEAL No.215 of 1979 relates to a flat in a building called Helioplis situate at colaba, Bombay -5 This flat was also taken on lease by the central Government from the owner of the building with effect from 1 -1 -1943. The appellant in this case in Lieutenant M.Mohammed. He was in the employment of the union Government as Lieutenant in the Indian Navy and because of his employment he was allotted the said flat on 21 -6 -1968. He retired from service on and from 1 -1 -1968. He retired from service on and from 1 -1 -1970. He failed to vacate the said flat and and hence the Estate office after giving notice and holding an enquiry passed an eviction order aginst the him on 18 -8 -1970. The appeal filed against the said order being Appeal No.81 of 1970 was allowed on 17 -12 -1971 on the ground that the Estate officer was not competent to hold the enquiry as his appointment had not been enquiry as his appointment had not been notified in the Government Gazzette as required under the provisions of S. 3 of the said Act. Thereafter the Estate officer duly appointed served upon him a fresh notice on 7 -1 -1972 and after holding an enquiry passed an eviction order against him on 2 -5 -1972. The appeal filed by being Appeal No.86 of 1972 was dismissed on 2 -8 -1973. His writ petition against the appellate order was dismissed on 3 -7 -1979.