Zila Sainik Board vs Surinder Kumar And Ors.

Supreme Court8 January 2002V.N. Khare · Ashok Bhan

Citation2002 SCC OnLine SC 5

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an unauthorised occupant of a public premises is sought to be evicted under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, the status of that person as a freedom fighter or ex-serviceman does not afford a defence to eviction, as the Act contains no provision exempting such persons from liability to eviction for unauthorised occupation.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The proceedings for eviction were initiatedagainst Hans Raj - predecessor of respondents1-4 under the Punjab PublicPremises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery)Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'theAct'), who was admittedly occupying a publicpremises. The predecessor of respondentshaving found to be an unauthorisedoccupant, and order of eviction was passedby the estate officer. Aggrieved, the respondentspreferred an appeal before the appellateauthority. The appellate authority allowedthe appeal merely on the ground thatHans Raj (now deceased) happened to bea freedom fighter and ex-serviceman and,therefore, his eviction was improper. Theappellant herein filed a writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution before theHigh Court. The said petition was dismissedand the order of the appellate authority wasaffirmed. It is against the said judgment ofthe High Court, the appellant has preferredthis appeal by way of special leave petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. We are of the opinion that the view takenby the appellate authority as confirmed bythe High Court that Hans Raj being a freedomfighter and ex-serviceman, his evictionfrom the premises was improper, is erroneous.There is no provision in the Actthat an unauthorised occupant, who is eithera freedom fighter or an ex-army mancannot be evicted from a public premises.We, accordingly set aside the judgmentunder challenge and allow the appeal.There shall be no order as to costs.

5. After the order was dictated, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 stated that in case the respondents are required to vacate the premises immediately, it shall create great hardship to them and, therefore, some time may be granted to vacate the premises. On instruction of Major MPS Kakra, learned counsel for the appellant stated that appellant has no objection to grant some time to the respondents to vacate the premises. We, therefore, direct that, the respondents shall not be evicted from the premises in dispute till 31.12.2002 on their filing usual undertaking in this Court within six weeks from today. In case, undertaking is not filed within the stipulated time, this part of the order shall stand automatically vacated.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free