Gujarat High Court
Kalpeshbhai Kiritbhai Shah vs Dy. Executive Engineer on 19 October, 2023
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12012 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12018 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12019 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12022 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12144 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12145 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12146 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12148 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12149 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
KALPESHBHAI KIRITBHAI SHAH
Versus
DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR JR SHAH(762) for the
Petitioner(s) No.
Page 1 of 85
Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
MR MOHAMMEDSOHEL S SHAIKH(10953) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR AADITYA P
DAVE(11461) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 19/10/2023
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The captioned writ-applications referred above are self-
same arising out of the identical issue being aggrieved by the orders passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 wherein by concurrent findings of Estate Officer and City Civil Court, Ahmedabad held that the writ-applicant in all the above writ-applications are unauthorised occupants. The Special Civil Application No.12012 of 2023 is treated as lead matter with the consent of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties and order passed in the said writ-application shall govern captioned writ-applications.
2. By way of present writ-application the writ-applicant lessee herein has challenged the impugned order dated Page 2 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined 19.12.2022 (Annexure-A) passed in Eviction Application No.22 of 2022 passed by the Estate Officer, Ahmedabad duly confirmed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by order dated 23.6.2023 below Ex.23 in Regular Civil Suit No.6 of 2022 passed under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
3. Brief facts germane for adjudication of the present dispute read thus :-
3.1 It is the case of the writ-applicant lessee that the writ-
applicant lessee is tenant of the premises in question situated at District, Sub-District Ahmedabad, City Ahmedabad, building which is known as Ahmedebad Jilla Panchayat, Shop situated on the ground floor.
3.2 The writ-applicant lessee herein is in possession and occupation of the premises in question since many years and is regularly paying rent for the said suit premises. Though the Page 3 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined writ-applicant lessee herein is tenant of the premises no rent note or lease deed has been executed and only for the first time in the year 2007 a lease deed came to be executed which has expired and thereafter no further lease has been executed and therefore the writ-applicant lessee is unauthorized occupant of the suit property and accordingly the respondent passed resolution and thereafter the Estate Officer issued statutory notice under Section-4 of the Public Premises Act which came to be issued to the writ-applicant lessee alongwith the plaint which has been filed by the respondent authority.
3.3 It is the case of the writ-applicant lessee that subsequent to the said lease the respondent passed a resolution being Resolution No.64 on 30.6.2010 and in the said resolution the rent has been revised by the respondent and the respondent has incorporated certain conditions while passing the said resolution. The writ-applicant lessee alongwith other tenants accepted the said resolution and started making payment to the respondent qua the rent fixed.
Page 4 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined 3.4 Further the life of lease expired by efflux of time, however the respondent has not terminated the said lease and/ or claimed any right on the basis of same and, therefore, considering the said resolution passed by the respondent, the respondent can be said to have accepted that the writ-applicant lessee is tenant despite the lease was over and, therefore, passed the necessary resolution.
3.5 In May 2022, the respondent issued legal notice through their advocate and in the said notice the respondent has not only admitted that the writ-applicant lessee as well as occupants as tenants but Jilla Panchayat has terminated tenancy rights by issuing such notice and similarly after reply given by the tenants, while giving rejoinder as well as filing caveat before the City Civil Court the respondent has admitted the writ-applicant lessee as tenant.
3.6 In May 2022, the respondent called upon the writ-
applicant lessee as well as other tenants to hand over Page 5 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined possession on the next day and in fact took over possession illegally. In view thereof, the writ-applicant lessee was constrained to approach the learned City Civil Court and seek mandatory reliefs, wherein the competent Court directed the respondent to return the possession of the subject matter of the property to writ-applicant lessee and other tenants.
4. Being aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the learned City Civil Court the respondent filed Appeal From Order being AFO No.130 of 2022 whereby the said order passed by the trial Court came to be confirmed reserving the liberty in favour of the respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
5. It is stated that as far as eviction is concerned, the same has been claimed mainly on two grounds by the respondent authority; one arrears of rent and two bonafide requirement. It is also stated that while passing the order the Estate Officer has only allowed order of eviction and as far as mesne profit Page 6 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined is concerned, the said relief has not been granted by the Estate Officer. The said order is not challenged by the respondent authority.
6. In the aforesaid sets of facts the writ-applicant lessee herein has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :-
"(A) Be pleased to admit the present petition and be pleased to called for the papers and proceedings of the Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2022 filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble City Civil Court, Ahmedabad along with the original records produced by the respondent before the learned trial judge.
(B) This Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order passed in Civil Appeal No.6/2022 by the Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court No.2, order dated 23.6.2023 Regular Civil Appeal No.6 of 2022 Annex.C at Ahmedabad as well as order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the Estate Officer in the interest of justice.Page 7 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined (C) The Hon'ble court be pleased to grant stay the execution and implementation of the impugned order passed in Civil Appeal No. 6/2022 by the Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court No.2, Ahmedabad as well as order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the Estate Officer and be pleased to protect the possession of the petitioner qua the suit property in question as mentioned in the memo of appeal till final disposal of this petition.
(D) Grant any other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant."
7. Heard Mr. Mehul S. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. R. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicants lessees and Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aaditya P. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
Submissions on behalf of the writ-applicant :-
8. Mr. Mehul S. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ-applicant lessee submitted that in the Page 8 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined notice under Section 4, the Estate Officer must contain that occupant is an unauthorized occupant and the Estate Officer must form his opinion in the notice under section 4 that the occupant is an unauthorized occupant.
8.1 Before initiating the proceeding under the Public Premises Act, resolution requires to be passed by the authority. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submission, the authority contended that the resolution dated 21.2.2022 has been passed, but the same has not been produced before the trial court.
8.2 The Estate Officer requires to frame the issue from the pleadings.
8.3 It is duty of the original plaintiff to prove their case by leading oral evidence and chance is required to be given to the other side for cross-examination. The original plaintiff requires to produce evidence and the original documents.
8.4 The original plaintiff requires to give necessary notice under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act before Page 9 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined initiating proceedings under the Public Premises Act.
8.5 As per the guideline issued by the Government, Public Premises Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
8.6 The Estate Officer requires to record submissions and evidence in the impugned order.
8.7 The Estate Officer requires to pass a reasoned order.
8.8 As per the provision of law, Estate Officer requires to apply his own mind and pass the necessary order. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted that had the Estate Officer framed the issue, original plaintiff had produced the evidence and also led the oral evidence.
8.9 It is necessary for the original plaintiff to contend in the plaint that the occupant is an unauthorized occupant.
8.10 The Estate Officer has wrongly framed issues in the impugned order more particularly issue No. 2. As per the provision of law, negative is not required to prove.
Page 10 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined 8.11 It was submitted that original plaintiff has relied upon the Resolution No. 147 dated 7.6.2012 and on the basis of the same alleged that the original defendant - writ-applicant herein has committed default, even then said document has not been produced before the trial court. Issue is, that if the said resolution has not been produced, then how the Estate Officer able to refer and rely upon the same and pass any order in favour of the original plaintiff.
8.12 Bonafide requirement claimed by the respondent -
original plaintiff has already been claimed in the year 1980 but the same has been given up by the original plaintiff and almost after 40 years, once again eviction has been sought on the same ground.
8.13 Placing reliance on the documents produced at Annexure-
D it was submitted that the respondent has prepared the draft order and forwarded to the Estate Officer and, therefore, the Estate Officer has not authored the order. As per the law, Page 11 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined Estate officer has been appointed and the Estate Officer is required to act as Judge to adjudicate the matter and pass necessary orders. In the facts of the present case instead of applying his own mind and constructing the order, learned Estate Officer has only signed the order which has been prepared by some one else from the office of the respondent and accordingly the order impugned is absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act.
8.14 It was submitted that the main ground of eviction as contended by the respondent is to the effect that the lease was executed in the year 2007 and the same expired in the year 2010 and thereafter no further lease has been executed and, therefore, the writ-applicant is unauthorized occupant of the premises.
8.15 It was further submitted that after the lease period was over the respondent passed the Resolution No.64 dated 30.6.2010 and in the said resolution the respondent revised the Page 12 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined rent and incorporated the terms and conditions and, therefore, considering the said resolution dated 30.6.2010 it is improper and illegal to accept the case of the respondent that after the lease was over there was no renewal.
8.16 It was submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument as contended by the respondent that after the lease period was over, no lease has been executed, that under such circumstances there was no reason for the respondent to pass such resolution dated 30.6.2010. It was submitted that the aforesaid clearly establishes tenancy created by the respondent which has been continued and accordingly necessary resolution came to be passed by the respondent.
8.17 It was submitted that it is not the case of the respondent that the suit premises has been let out for the first time in the year 2007 and lease document has been executed. On the contrary, the writ-applicant and other tenants are occupying the premises as tenant prior to 1980 and thereafter the Page 13 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined respondent filed eviction proceedings against the tenants and to support the aforesaid the writ-applicant placed on record the order passed in Eviction Appeal No.31 of 1983 qua one of the tenant and similarly one of the writ-applicant against whom proceeding was initiated in the year 1982 and copy of the order passed by the Estate Officer has been produced before the learned trial Judge in the Eviction Case No.1 of 1983 and thereafter tenancy right came to be created by the respondent in favour of the writ-applicant as well as other tenants were prior to 2007.
8.18 It was submitted that many years after creating tenancy rights for the first time in the year 2007 lease document was executed. It was submitted that after the resolution passed by the respondent on 30.6.2010 correspondence has been exchanged between the writ-applicant and the respondent between 2012 to 2021 and the same has been produced before the learned Estate Officer, even though the learned trial Court thought it fit not to consider the same and the same is not Page 14 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined answered.
8.19 It was submitted that even assuming that the lease was over and the same was not renewed and, therefore, the writ-
applicant is unauthorised occupant, even under such circumstances notice under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act was required to be given to the writ-applicant and the same has not been given in the present case by the respondent. On the aforesaid ground alone, the order impugned requires to be quashed and set aside.
8.20 It was submitted that the respondent themselves having admitted in the plaint, more particularly in para-2 that the writ-applicant has paid rent as per Resolution No.64 dated 30.6.2010, the writ-applicant herein having not produced the rent receipt in support of the statement would not in any way change the nature of the writ-applicant i.e. being tenant of the property.
8.21 It was submitted that the writ-applicant has paid Page 15 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined necessary rent until 2022 thus the order impugned passed by the trial Court is erroneous.
8.22 It was submitted that the Estate Officer had only passed the order of eviction, however the trial Court while passing the impugned order in para-41 directed the writ-applicant herein to pay four time legally due recoverable rent and to support this direction the learned trial Court discussed the same in paragraphs 37 to 40 of the impugned order.
8.23 The respondent having not preferred an appeal challenging the order passed by the Estate Officer, it was not open for the trial Court to pass such direction in appeal filed by the writ-applicant herein and, therefore, such direction given to the writ-applicant is required to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that the trial Court without ascertaining the outstanding amount used the word "four times legally due recoverable rent" and, therefore, the issue arises that since the issue of what is due and recoverable rent, the trial Court passed the impugned order without ascertaining the Page 16 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined rent recoverable and in view thereof the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
8.24 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, It was submitted that the writ-applicant is in possession and occupation of the suit property for many years as tenant and paying the rent regularly and in view thereof the orders impugned passed by the trial Court as well as the Estate Officer are required to be quashed and set aside.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent :-
9. Heard Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aaditya P. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
9.1 Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the present writ-application has been filed by the writ-applicant challenging concurrent findings by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Gujarat Public Premises Act (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 [hereinafter Page 17 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined referred to as the "PP Act"] and the Ld. District Judge under Section 9 of the said Act.
9.2 From the admitted factual matrix, the following facts are undisputed:
(a) Lease Agreements of all the writ-applicant lessee has admittedly expired in the year 2010. After which, despite negotiations, the same have not been renewed.
(b) The respondent Panchayat has over the years addressed several communications to the writ-applicant lessee asking him to evict the premises. Hence, there was never a positive assent of the Panchayat for the writ-applicant to remain in possession.
(c) The writ-applicant's reliance on Resolutions to justify nonpayment of lease amount or not entering into Agreements under the guise of the said Resolution as binding Agreements is baseless. Since, in fact the Resolution was merely an in-
principle assent given to enter into a lease deed on certain terms, which admittedly, was never entered into.
Page 18 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined 9.3 Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that thus, admittedly, when the lease period has expired by efflux of time and also has been determined by way of several notices, the writ-applicant lessee become "Unauthorized Occupant" under the provisions of the PP Act.
9.4 Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel reliance on Section 2(h) of the PP Act.
9.5 Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that therefore, upon expiration of the lease on basis of which the writ-applicant lessee was in possession of the present public premises, the same was "unauthorized occupant" within the meaning of the said section. Moreover, there is no question of determination, when admittedly, the lease period had expired and there existed no lease after its expiration in the year 2010.
9.6 Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that Lease Agreements entered into between the petitioners and the Ahmedabad District Panchayats, are governed by the provisions Page 19 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
9.7 Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that therefore, unless the lease agreement is made and governed between the parties in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, the lease agreements cannot be entered into. The lease in question was entered into for a period of 2 years, 11 months and 29 days, which expired in the year 2010.
9.8 Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in any case, in accordance with the definition of Section 2(h) of the Public Premises Act, the lease period has expired and hence, the writ-applicant lessee is 'unauthorized occupant' and deserve to be evicted in accordance with the mandate of the Public Premises Act.
9.9 Reliance placed by the writ-applicant on the decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs. Nusli Page 20 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined Neville Wadia and Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 876, wherein the Apex Court held in para-35 that summary of evidence must be recorded by the Estate Officer, for it being the creature of statute must adhere to the same.
Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel answering the said contention submitted that the learned Apex Court was deciding a case under The Central Public Premises Act, 1972, whereunder Rule 5 of the said Act provides for recording of summary of evidence. Whereas, there is no equivalent rule under The Gujarat Public Premises Rules and hence, the reliance on the said judgement and the consequential argument to record evidence is misplaced. It was submitted that when upon the admission of the writ-applicant the lease period has expired, there exists no subsisting lease agreements since its expiry in the year 2010, there is no evidence required to be recorded or controverted. The admitted facts remain undisputed to hold that the writ-applicant lessee is unauthorized occupant, liable to eviction under the Act.
Page 21 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined To substantiate the aforesaid contention Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on para-8 of Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs. LIC, reported in (1980) 4 SCC 435, that the proceedings under the Public Premises Act are "summary" in nature and hence there is no mandatory requirement of elaborate evidence, cross-examination etc. 9.10 It was submitted that the contention raised by the writ-
applicant herein that the Estate Officer passed the impugned order relying on the Draft Order prepared by one of the officers which is actually a Draft Notice which is a submission made by the officer in ordinary course of government businesses. It was further submitted that the Annexure-D relied upon by the writ-applicant itself shows that that it is only a submission subject to approval, modifications and or rejections if any. The said one paragraph of the submission does not constitute the order which runs into 15-pages including recording of submissions, analysis thereof and findings in terms thereof.
Page 22 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined 9.11 It was also submitted that it is not even the case of the writ-applicant that the order lacks any material particulars.
9.12 Placing reliance on the aforesaid it was submitted that in absence of any material particulars missing in the impugned order, the said objection deserves to be rejected. To substantiate the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the the decision in case of Mayur Jayantilal Parikh v. State of Gujarat [SCA 14992 of 2018].
9.13 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the findings are concurrent findings of fact and the same are not perverse.
10. The aforesaid submissions advanced by Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel came to be controverted by Mr. Mehul Shah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ-
Page 23 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined applicant wherein it was mainly submitted that the writ-
applicant lessee was required to be permitted to occupy the premises on the ground of promissory estoppel.
10.1 It was submitted that the writ-applicant being the tenant, it is the right of tenant to continue occupation "holding over"
in terms of Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
10.2 Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel also reiterated the submission that Resolution No.64 passed in the year 2010 was not binding between the parties.
10.3 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it was reiterated that in absence of any order or further agreement terminating the lease between the parties, the parties are governed by the said agreement. In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside.
11. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Senior Counsel refuted the said by submitting that the aforesaid submissions Page 24 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined advanced by Mr. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel by submitting that there was no promise or binding action undertaken by the respondent whereunder the respondents were estopped from evicting the writ-applicant. It was submitted that Resolution No.64 was merely to approve the rate at which Panchayat would be "agreeable" to enter into the agreement. Admittedly the said agreement never materialized. Hence, mere acceptance of rent at rates unilaterally decided by the writ-applicant lessee would not amount to giving rise to any estoppel contrary to the statutory stipulation. Moreover, the writ-applicant lessee declined to enter into a fresh lease agreements as per the prevalent jantri rates from 2012 onwards.
11.1 It was submitted that in absence of any promise or positive assent by the respondent there may not any promissory estoppel. Placing reliance on Section 157 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 it was reiterated by Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel that Section 157 of the Act requires Page 25 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined entering into lease agreement in a particular mode, lest the same shall be void, the writ-applicant lessee cannot claim any equity to say estoppel would override statutory provision.
11.2 It was submitted that Section 110 applies to village panchayat and there is no such provision for District Panchayat, however, the said submission was clearly misleading. Ms. Shah, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Section 157 applies to district panchayats which is parimateria to Section 110 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and parties are governed by Section 157 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act.
11.3 It was lastly submitted that the writ-applicant lessee accepted and admitted that there are no rules under the Gujarat Public Premises Act which mandatorily require the recording of evidence.
11.4 Submission by Mr. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel that Section 8 of the Act empowers the authority with the powers Page 26 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined of the civil court. It was submitted that Eviction Officer and the Appellate Authority were based on the "unequivocal admission" of the expiry of the lease agreements, [Please see:
Page 36 of the Petition] there was no further requirement on part of the Eviction Officer to analyze or interpret evidence to evince truth from the writ-applicant.
11.5 Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it was submitted that the writ-application filed by the writ-applicant being devoid of merit be dismissed with cost.
Analysis :-
12. It is apposite to refer to Sections 2(h), 4 and 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 read thus :-
"2(h) "unauthorised occupation" in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to Page 27 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever."
"4. (1) If the competent officer is satisfied-
(a) that the person authorised to occupy any public premises has--
(i) not paid rent lawfully due from him in respect of such premises for a period of more than two months, or
(ii) sub-let, without the permission of the State Government or, as the case may be,the corporate authority, the whole or any part of such premisses, or
(iii) committed, or is committing such acts of waste as are likely to diminish materially the value, or impair substantially the utility, of the premises, or
(iv) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such, premises, or
(b) that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, or
(c) that any public premises are required for any other purpose of the State Government, or, as the case may be, the corporate authority to whom such premises belong, the competent officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.Page 28 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined (2) The notice shall--
(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and
(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in, the public premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as may be specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof.
(3) The competent officer shall cause the notice to be served by post or by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned.
(4) Where the competent officer knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed.
(5) If any person makes an application to the competent officer for extension of the period specified in the notice, the competent officer may grant the same on such terms as to Page 29 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined payment and recovery of the amount claimed in the notice, as it deems fit."
"5. (1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by himself, or by advocate, attorney or pleader, the competent officer is satisfied that any of the reasons specified in sub- section (1) of section 4 exists, the competent officer may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises; and thereupon the order shall be deemed to have been duly served on all the persons concerned.
(2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days of the date of its service under sub-section (1), the competent officer or any other officer duly authorised by the competent officer in this behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and may for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where a person who has been ordered to vacate any public Page 30 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined premises for the reasons specified in sub-clause (i) or (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 pays to the competent officer the rent in arrears or carries out or otherwise complies with the terms contravened by him to the satisfaction of the competent officer as the case may be, within one month, of the date of service of the notice or such longer time as the competent officer may allow, the competent officer shall, in lieu of evicting such person under sub-section (2), cancel his order made under sub- section (1) and thereupon such person shall hold the premises on the same terms on which he held them immediately before such notice was served on him."
12.1 It is also apposite to refer to Section 157 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 which reads thus :-
"S.157 ... Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) no lease, sale or other transfer of any immovable property vesting in, or acquired by a panchayat shall be valid unless such lease, sale or other transfer has been made with the previous sanction of the competent authority.
(2) In the case of a lease of immovable property other than the property vesting in the panchayat under section 108, no such previous sanction shall be necessary, if the period of lease does not exceed three years."Page 31 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined
13. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. The following emerge for consideration of this Court;
13.1 The writ-applicants herein and the respondent Panchayat entered into a Lease Agreement dated 4.8.2007 and respectively.
The Lease was specifically mentioned to be at-will.
Hence, no claim under the Rent act or any other law can be sought for.
The lease agreement entered into between the parties expired by efflux of time. On 7.4.2010, communication came to be issued by the respondent Panchayat to the writ-applicant calling upon the writ-applicant to enter into new agreement and to attend the meeting dated 19.04.2010 (for fixation of rent increment). The aforesaid communication has been referred to by the writ-applicant in letter dated 09.11.2012 at page.114 of the paper-book. On 30.6.2010, the respondent panchayat passed Resolution No. 64 which is duly produced at page-106 of the paper-book. The said Resolution gives the Page 32 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined approval for entering into the Rent Agreements at the agreed rates. The resolution was an in-principle agreement and not a binding contract between the parties. The said resolution concluded as under :-
The aforesaid increment in lease amount and approval for entering into lease agreement is unanimously resolved to be granted.
13.2 On 16.8.2010, the respondent addressed a communication to the writ-applicant and other lessees requiring them to pay the remaining dues as per the Resolution No. 64 (page-106 of the paper-book-1). Undisputedly the writ-applicant lessee failed to make the payment of the agreed amount of rent from 1.7.2009 till 31.8.2010 @ page-108 of the paper-
book. On 18.8.2010, the respondent herein addressed a communication to the lessees regarding payment of the rent as well as to execute a rent agreement as per the new rate (page-
109A of the paper-book). Undisputedly the lease agreement was neither renewed nor was the lessee i.e. the writ-applicant Page 33 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined occupying the premises with any legal authority. On 30.3.2012, the lessee addressed communication stating that the writ-
applicant lessee was ready and willing to execute rent agreement and had sent a draft for finalization (page-110 of the paper-book). Despite the lease agreement having expired in the year 2010 a new lease agreement had not been executed.
13.3 The sending of draft by the writ-applicant herein would not entail that the lease agreement stood renewed. In fact, non-execution of the lease agreement stipulates that the draft was not accepted by the respondent authority. On 2.7.2012, the Resolution No.147 was passed by the respondent in view of the revised Jantri (land record prices as notified by the State Government) rates. On 4.7.2012, communication was addressed by the respondent to the writ-applicant lessee stating that the Resolution No.147 passed by the respondent Panchayat had unanimously agreed for the increment in rent (page-111 of the paper-book). The writ-applicant lessee affixed his signature and Page 34 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined endorsement on the said communication reading "rent is not acceptable". Hence in any case the parties were not ad idem.
13.4 On 19.10.2012, the respondent thereafter issued a communication seeking eviction of the said writ-applicant lessee stating that the rent agreement was not renewed and also the arrears of the rent were not paid despite several reminders (page-113 of the paper-book). The respondent in the said communication informed the writ-applicant lessee that as per Resolution No.147 rent increment was fixed. The writ-
applicant lessee was informed to pay the arrears and enter into new rent agreement, which was not done. By the said communication, eviction of the lessee was sought considering that there existed no lease agreement between the parties as also the fact that the rent dues remained unpaid. Hence, even otherwise, the lease stood terminated/determined even after expiry by efflux of time.
Page 35 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined 13.5 On 9.11.2012, the writ-applicant lessee replied to the said notice stating that the lessee has paid the rent which was increased as per the old Resolution No.64 of 2010 (page-114 of the paper-book). Significantly, the writ-applicant lessee in the last para of the notice accepted that the lease agreement was not renewed. On 13.7.2015, the respondent issued a communication to the writ-applicant lessee requiring the writ-
applicant to remain present in the meeting dated 14.07.2015 in order to discuss the rent arrears. The said negotiation between the parties were never materialized and the same could not be construed to mean extension of the lease of the writ-
applicant lessee.
13.6 On 18.7.2019, the writ-applicant lessee issued a communication to the respondent stating the following (page-
122 of the paper-book) :
(i) The writ-applicant lessee was ready and willing to pay only as per the 15% increase from 2019 onwards.Page 36 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined
(ii) The writ-applicant lessee agreed to enter into new agreement subject to the premises being transferred to the sub-
lessees to whom the writ-applicant lessee had let out the premises pending the litigation.
13.7 On 27.08.2021 (@ page-123 of the paper-book), the Executive Committee rejected the proposal made by the writ-
applicant lessee as the writ-applicant was not person from any marginalized communities or government recognized beneficiaries of any scheme, etc. Hence, the writ-applicant lessee could not be granted the premises at lesser than competitive market rates. Further the respondent Panchayat resolved to take necessary action in pursuance of the same.
13.8 On 6.5.2022, the respondent Panchayat issued a legal notice to the writ-applicant lessee calling upon the writ-
applicant lessee to evict the premises, stating the following grounds:
(i) Bonafide requirement of use by the Respondent [internal page-2 @ page-51 of paper-book] Page 37 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined
(ii) Non-payment of rent [para 3 at internal page-3] The writ-applicant lessee responded to the said notice vide their reply raising the following objections:
(i) No bonafide use. [para 3 at page. 55] (ii) Non-payment of rent was wrong allegation, and
admittedly the writ-applicant lessee had paid the same rent since 2010 resolution without any agreed increase. [para 4 at page 57] 13.9 On 6.6.2022, the respondent Panchayat addressed a rejoinder to the reply to the legal notice. In the said rejoinder the writ-applicant lessee was served with a copy of the following:
(a) Resolution No. 147 dated 01.04.2012. (b) All the Notices given on various instances demanding the lease amounts. (c) Details of the unpaid lease amounts. (d) Resolution No. 21/3 dated 21.02.2022 Page 38 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined (e) Consent proposal given by the writ-applicant on 18.07.2009 (f) Resolution dated 02.09.2021 rejecting the aforesaid consent proposal. 13.10 In the meantime, the respondent authority sealed
the premises in question in possession of the writ-applicant lessee which resulted into filing of the Civil Suit CCC 890 of 2022 seeking injunction before the City Civil Court Ahmedabad which came to be granted in favour of the writ-
applicant lessee directing the respondent to unseal the premises.
13.11 The respondent being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8.7.2022 approached this Court by filing Appeal From Order No.130 of 2022 which came to be disposed of upholding the order passed by the learned Civil Civil Court, Ahmedabad and observed that appropriate proceedings under the Public Premises Eviction Act be initiated, keeping it open for the Page 39 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined respondent authority to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Public Premises Eviction Act.
13.12 On 22.7.2022, Inquiry Application No. 26 of 2022 came to be filed before the competent Authority by the respondent herein under the Public Premises Eviction Act, 1972 (page-3 of the paper-book). Notice came to be issued on 25.7.2022 under section 4 of the Act by the competent authority (page-1 of the paper-book). On 6.9.2022, reply came to be filed by the writ-applicant lessee before the competent authority (page-5 of the paper-book).
13.13 On 19.12.2022, the competent authority passed eviction order under Section 5 of the Act considering the writ-applicant lessee as "unauthorized occupant" as defined under section 2(h) of the Act. The competent authority recorded his "satisfaction"
as regards the writ-applicants being unauthorized occupants with the conclusion of the lease period of 2 years, 11 months and 29 days, since 2010 in the said order. This aforesaid is Page 40 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined admitted by the writ-applicant lessee. The said order dated 19.12.2022 passed under Section 5 of the Act reads thus :-
"Thus, considering representation of both the parties as well as the details of available records, it appears that various offices of District Panchayat are functional above the show- room situated on the ground floor in the building known as Ahmedabad District Panchayat. Among the said show rooms, after the rent agreement with the Jilla Panchayat, Ahmedabad for the Show Room/Shop No.1, admeasuring area of 251.00 (Ground Floor) + 219.00 (Area of margin) i.e. the property in possession admeasuring total area of 470.00 sq.ft. ended in the year 2010, no new rent agreement has been made between the complainant and the occupant. It is corroborated from the records.
As per the provisions made in the section - 4 (1)(A) (1) to (4) of the Gujarat Act No.12 of 1973 The Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, the rent due as per the rules for the period of more than two months in connection with such property has not been paid. Further, as per the resolution passed in the general body meeting of the Jilla Panchayat, Ahmedabad on 21/02/2022, it has been resolved to get back the occupation of the shops of the Jilla Panchayat, Ahmedabad located at the ground floor since the Jilla Panchayat, Ahmedabad does not have sufficient Page 41 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined space for its office building. Further, as per the provision in section - 4 (1)(B), it has been been specifically provided that if any person is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises or as per section - 4 (1)(C), when any public premises are required for any other purpose of the State Government, or, as the case may be, the corporate authority to whom such premises belong, such premises given on rent can be evicted.
Thus, considering the provisions of section - 4 (1)(A) (1), 4 (1)(B) and 4 (1)(C) of the Gujarat Act No.12 of 1973 The Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, it appears that the proprietor of the Associate Manu. and Suppliers, Kalpeshbhai Kiritbhai Shah is an unauthorised illegal occupant of the property of Show Room No.1, admeasuring area of 251.00 (Ground Floor) + 219.00 (Area of Margin), i.e. total 470.00 sq.ft. area located at the ground floor of S.No.4284/AP/11/3 paiki of Jilla Panchayat, Ahmedabad among the property with independent ownership and occupation of the Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat bearing Sessions No.2354/11/3 paiki of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Moreover, in the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the Civil Suit No.890/2022 filed by the Jilla Panchayat, Ahmedabad, it has been stated to take action as per the provisions of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act to get back the possession of the said place. Thus, it is established that the Page 42 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined respondents have violated all the provisions of the section - 4 (1)(A)(1), 4 (1)(B) and 4 (1)(C) of the Gujarat Act No.12 of 1973 The Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.
Thus, it is also not established that the facts stated by the respondents in the written reply submitted by them in their defence are true.
After completing all the procedures as per section - 5 (1) of the Gujarat Act No.12 of 1973 The Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 and considering the abovementioned facts, I pass the following order as per the power conferred upon me.
Order I, Mr. Suraj Barot, the competent authority and Deputy District Development Officer (Revenue) Jilla Panchayat, Ahmedabad (Appointed vide Notification No. Gh/J/15/75(A) EVC 1173 A (A) dated 15/04/1975 of the Civil Construction Department) pass the order that the Eviction Application No.22/2022 of the complainant/applicant is allowed and the respondent proprietor of the Associate Manu. and Suppliers, Kalpeshbhai Kiritbhai Shah shall hand over the actual, vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed property of Show Room No.1, admeasuring area of 251.00 (Ground Floor) + 219.00 (Area of Margin), i.e. total 470.00 sq.ft. area located at Page 43 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined the ground floor of S.No.4284/AP/11/3 paiki of Jilla Panchayat, Ahmedabad among the property with independent ownership and occupation of the Ahmedabad Jilla Panchayat bearing Sessions No.2354/11/3 paiki of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to the complainant/applicant within 30 days from the service of this order as per section - 4 (1)(A) (1), 4 (1)(B) and 4(1)(C).
The order is passed today on 19/12/2022.
Sd/-(Illegible) Dy. District Development Officer, (Revenue) Jilla Panchayat, Ahmedabad."
13.14 Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the competent authority, as referred above, the writ-applicant lessee preferred Appeal under Section 9 of the Act being Regular Civil Appeal No.6 of 2022 before the City Civil Court (page-121 of the paper-book) which came to be rejected vide order dated 23.6.2023 passed below Ex.23 confirming the findings by the competent authority that the writ-applicant lessee herein is in unauthorized occupancy of the shop, with the lease having lapsed in the year 2010.
Page 44 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined 13.15 It is apposite to refer to the order dated 23.6.2023 passed below Ex.23 in the Regular Civil Appeal No.6 of 2022 by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, paragraphs 4, 6 to 8, 10 to 27, 30, 31, 34 to 41 read thus :-
"{4} So, being disappointed by the order passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Development officer (Revenue) Ahmedabad. The original appellant/opponent has challenged the impugned order before this court on various grounds by filing this RCA. main grounds are....
1) The Competent Authority and Deputy Development officer (Revenue) Ahmedabad has not written the said order but somebody has written and only signed by him therefore it is not a legal order.
2) The appellant/opponent submitted some documents and raised material dispute before competent Authority but respondent/applicant has failed to produce rebuttal documents even though competent authority has passed mechanical order and has required it to be set aside.
3) competent authority has not framed the issues and has passed the eviction order therefore order is illegal and required to be set aside.
4) competent authority has not considered the documents produced by the appellant/opponent and passed the illegal order with intention to help the respondent/applicant. After the expiration of the rent agreement the opponent/appellant is not a trespasser but he is still legally tenant of the disputed premises, therefore Page 45 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined respondent/applicant has no right to take possession from the opponent/appellent. no notice is given to terminate the rental agreement.
5) the respondent/applicant has taken illegal grounds in his eviction application.
6) The respondent/applicant has not produced any documents with regard to the bonafide requirement of the premises. If the property is vacated, the opponent/appellant will suffer a lot of hardship. 7) The opponent is regularly paying rent to the applicant, therefore tenancy has not been terminated.
-: Issues:-
{6} 1. whether the appellant/opponent proves that the order passed by the competent Authority and Deputy Development officer (Revenue) Ahmedabad in eviction case no.22/2022 on.19-12-2022 is illegal, perverse and arbitrary and therefore it should be set aside by allowing this appeal?
2. What order?
{7} my answer to the above issues as under... 1, In the negative.
2. as per final order {8} The respondent (now referred as Applicant) had filed the eviction case no.22/2022 under section-5 of the Gujarat public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants act ) 1972 ( now referred as an act ) against the appellant (now referred as opponent) before competent Authority and Deputy Development officer (Revenue) Ahmedabad. (now referred to as a competent Authority), the brief facts of the case ( now referred as an Application) the disputed premise/ showroom/shop no.1 an ad measuring total 470.00 square feet situated at ground floor, District Page 46 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined Panchayat Building, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad. the applicant is the owner of such premises. The opponent had obtained such premises on rent through a rental agreement from the applicant and a rent note was also made on 04-08-2007, the agreement was made only for Two year eleven month and Twenty nine days, Such rent agreement expired on 02-08-2010 and has not made any new agreement between the applicant and opponent. Further, as per resolution no.147 dated- 07-06-2012 passed by the executive committee, it has decided to take possession of the premises. The committee has also fixed a new rent amount, even though the opponent is paying the amount as per rent agreement made on 07- 08-2007. Further District Panchayat has not enough space for office and therefore it has decided to get possession of such premises. further case is that as per the order of the hon'ble high court he has followed the due procedure under the provisions of The Gujarat public premises act-1972 and that very purpose applicant had filed eviction application no.22/2022 on 22- 07-2022 before competent Authority and prayed to passed an order for eviction in favor of the applicant and also requested to recover the outstanding amount of Rs. 19,42,620/00 from the opponent for unauthorized use of the premises.
{10} I considered the arguments and documents which were submitted by both sides before competent authority. I also perused the record of the eviction case no.22/2022 and order which has been passed by the competent authority on 19-12-2022. The disputed premises is showroom/shop no.1 total ad measuring 470.00 square feet with marginal space situated at ground floor district panchayat building, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad. The applicant is the owner of the premises, such premises obtained by the opponent Page 47 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined from the applicant on rent Agreement and for that very purpose the rent agreement had been made between the applicant and the opponent on 04-08-2007. It was made only for Two years eleven months and Twenty nine days. A rent agreement has been produced by the applicant. It clearly seems that the rent agreement was made between both the parties before sub registrar Ahmedabad and it was registered on 04-08-2007 by sub registrar Ahmedabad. I perused the condition no.13 of the rent agreement. It is valid for 35 months and 29 days from 04-08-2007. It means that the rent agreement is not made for a complete three years. So, the rent agreement expired on 03-08-2012. As per say of the applicant after completing the period of rent agreement, the rent agreement has not been renewed.
{11} As per say of the opponent, he is still continuing as tenant of the disputed property and he is paying rent regularly but he has not produced a new rent note or he has not produced any rent receipts of rent amount before competent Authority as well as this court also. Therefore, how can I believe that the opponent is still continuing as a tenant of the disputed premises but considering the original eviction application no. 22/2022 respondent/ applicant mentioned that the opponent/appellant are paying rent as per the resolution no. 64 on 30-06- 2010. Further opponents say that the applicant had passed resolution no.147 on 07-06-2012 and raised a dispute with respect to the rent but till today he has not been Implemented therefore the opponent is not bound to pay rent as per resolution no.147, the opponent has not accepted and did not give any consent with the resolution no.147, so resolution no.147 is illegal but in my view the owner of premises is the applicant, if he has not implemented resolution no.147 it does not mean that Page 48 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined resolution no. 147 is illegal. Whatever resolution passed by the applicant with respect to the rent then the opponent is duty bound to accept it and should pay rent as per such resolution. How can an opponent say that he will not accept and will not follow the terms and conduction of the resolution no.147, as per say of the opponent that the opponent has been paying rent as per resolution no.64 and such rent paid till date 30-06-2010 but as discussed above the opponent has not produced a rent receipt. A district panchayat is a statutory body, if he receives rent amount then he definitely issues a receipt but the opponent has not produced rent receipt it means that he has not paid rent amount. If the rent amount is paid by the opponent through cheque or other mode, then the opponent has to produce a statement of bank account but has not been produced. The learned advocate argued that the applicant had filed eviction application no.22/2022 before competent authority on maily three grounds (1) the opponent is unauthorized occupants (2) the opponent has not paid rent (3) disputed premises required for bonafide purpose. {12} The learned advocate for the opponent relies upon the Judgment of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia and ors reported in AIR 2008 SC page-876 and argued that while deciding the eviction application, the estate officer was required to frame the issue. Further the landlord needs to lead oral evidence and only thereafter it is for the defendant to lead the oral evidence and chance of cross examination must be given to the defendant. I will discuss the issue with respect to the framing of the issue and lead an evidence letter on but the estate officer had given an opportunity to the opponent for production of documents but the opponent has not produced any single documents, the Page 49 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined opponent failed to show that he is an authorized occupants, Learned Advocate also relied upon the Judgment of Ashoka marketing Ltd Vs. Punjab National Bank reported in 1991 SC page- 855 but facts of the cited Judgment differ from the case on hand. {13} He relied on the Judgment of The Indian Bank Bangalor Vs. Blaze and Central (P) Ltd reported in AIR 1986 Karnataka Page- 258 and the Judgment of Union of India Vs. T.R.varma reported in AIR 1957 SC page-882 and argued that Principal of natural Justice to be followed by the estate officer and he should hold the inquiry as per rule-5, for that very purpose i considered the record and preceding of the eviction application no.22/2022, it clearly seems that the estate officer has followed the due procedure, he has issued notice under section-4 of the act to the opponent and the opponent appeared through the learned advocate Mr.J.R.Shah and filed reply therefore it can not be said that the estate officer has not followed the due procedure and had not given any opportunity. {14} Learned advocate for the opponent relied upon the Judgments of Safari Airways Vs. The Estate officer reported in AIR 1983 Delhi page- 347. and the Judgment of Minoo Framroze Balsara Vs. The Union of India reported in AIR 1992 Bombay Page- 375 and argued that the estate officer must form his opinion that the occupant is in unauthorized occupation in the notice given under section -4 of the act. Now I have gone through the notice issued by the estate officer. It appears that the estate officer clearly mentioned that the opponent is an unauthorized occupant of the disputed premises. {15} The learned Advocate for the opponent argued that the opponent is not an unauthorized occupant of the premises and the opponent is continuing to pay regular rent to the applicant. but I do not agree with the contention of the learned advocate of the Page 50 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined opponent because before filing the eviction application the appellant had issued notice to the opponent but the opponent has not paid and also not vacated the premises, he is not paying rent as per resolution no.147, therefore the applicant has filed an eviction application. Moreover, after filing the application the competent authority had also issued notice to the opponent. The learned advocate for the opponent has produced 9 (Nine) documents vide ex-14.but has not produced any rent receipts. as on today disputed premises are in possession of the opponent. As per say of the opponent he is paying rent as per resolution no.64 but as discussed above the opponent has not produced any rent receipts therefore it can not say that he is paying rent. Considering all facts, the rent agreement expired in 2010 and a new rent agreement has not been made, opponent not paying rent as per resolution no.147, therefore in my view the opponent is unauthorized occupant of the disputed premises. the opponent has filed civil suit against the applicant it does not mean that he is legally tenant and legally occupant of the premises.
{16} Learned advocate for the opponent argued that the applicant has issued notice on 06-05-2022 for terminating the tenancy but has not called for hearing therefore not mention date in the order and has not given explanation as to why applicant has not mentioned date in the order. Further argued that the opponent has produced an affidavit in chief examined before competent authority but has not cross-examined to the opponent by the applicant therefore opponent submitted an Pursis for closing the right to produce an evidence of the applicant but competent authority is not a civil court and has no right to record evidence on oath power to record evidence has not been vested into the competent authority.
Page 51 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined {17} Considering section -5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) act-1971 read as under...... {18} Section-5:-Eviction of unauthorized occupants..... (1)If, after considering the cause, if any,shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4, the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized occupation, the estate officer shall make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order but not later than fifteen days from the date of the order, by all person who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises. {19} So, considering the above provision, the word used like "pursuance of a notice under section-4 and any evidence produced by him in support of the same," here in this case, competent authority has issued notice to the opponent under section-4 of the act. The applicant has to produce documents which he relies on, and the applicant has produced the same. Further section-5 says that after the personal hearing estate officer satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized occupation, the estate officer shall make an order of eviction. section-5 does not say that the estate officer shall record the evidence and pass the eviction order. but considering the Judgment of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia Reported in AIR 2008 Sc Page- 876. and argued that While deciding the eviction application, the estate officer was required to frame the issue. further the landlord needs Page 52 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined to lead oral evidence and only thereafter it is for the defendant to lead the oral evidence and chance of cross examination must be given to the defendant. Here in this case the applicant has not examined any witness therefore there is no question for cross examination of the applicant, if the applicant had examined any witness then definitely the right of cross examine will have to be the opponent.
{20} In my view any person unauthorized occupying any public premises then owner of the premise has to file an eviction application before the estate officer who is appointed under section- 3 of the act, with supporting evidence. The estate office will issue notice under section-4 of the act and after hearing, if the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized occupation, the estate officer will pass an order of eviction. there is no provision to record the evidence. therefore not necessary to submit an affidavit in chief examination by either party before the estate officer. The public premises ( eviction of unauthorized occupants) 1958 was enacted to provide for speedy machinery for eviction of unauthorized occupants of the public premises. section-5 of the act provides for taking possession of the public premises from the person who is in authorized occupation. section -7 of the act provides for recovery of rent or damages in respect of public premises from persons, who are in unauthorized occupation thereof. {21} I have gone through the original record of the competent authority, the first notice had been issued by the competent authority on 25-07-2022, then another notice issued on 23-08-2022, 01-09-2022, 16-09-2022, 06/09/2022, 20-10-2022, la. advocate Mr. Janak R. Shah appeared on behalf of the opponent before competent authority and submitted an adjournment application on Page 53 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined 10-08-2022. He filed a reply on 06-09-2022, and he has also filed an affidavit in chief examination of the opponent even though he argued the competent authority has not given opportunity for hearing, so such an argument can not be accepted. the competent authority had given full opportunity to the opponent to produce evidence.
{22} The showroom/shop no. 01 admeasuring 251.00 (ground floor) including Marginal Space, total 470.00 square feet property situated at ground floor, District Panchayat Building, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad. is public premises as per section 2 (e) of the public premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) act 1971. section-2(e) "public premises" means-
1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of the Central Government, and includes any such premises which have been placed by that government, whether before or after the commencement of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Amendment Act,1980 (61 of 1980) under the control of the Secretariat of either House of Parliament for providing residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that Secretariat.
2) ..........
(i)....
(ii).....
(iii).....
(iiia)....
(iv).....
(v).....
(vi)....
(vii).....
Page 54 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined
(viii)....
3).......
(i).....
(ii)....
(iii)....
(iv).....
as per section-2 (c) "premises" means any land or any building or part of a building and includes-
(i) the garden,grounds,and outhouse,if any, appertaining to such building or part of a building,and
(ii) any fitting affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof, impugned order passed by the estate officer as per the section 2 (b) of the act....
{23} Considering the eviction application no.22/2022, the applicant has filed an eviction application under the provisions of Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorized Occupants ) act-1972, and the opponent has filed the appeal provision of the act of 1971 therefore learned advocate for the applicant argued that act of 1971 would not be apply. Now, look at the provision of section-2 (D) and 2 (F) and 2 (H) of The Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorized Occupants ) act-1972....... Section-2(d):- "Premises" means any land or any building or part of a building and includes.....
(1)the garden,grounds and outhouse, if any,appearing to such building or part of a building,and (2)any fittings affixed to such a building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof.
Page 55 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined Section -2 (F):- Public Premises:- means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the state Government,and includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of....
(i) any Municipal Corporation constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act,1949 or any Municipality constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act,1963.
(ii) a Panchayat constituted under the Gujarat panchayat Act,1961,
(iii))....
(iv)....
(v).....
section-2 (H)..... In relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority ( Whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.
{24} Considering the above provisions, District Panchayat Ahmedabad is constituted under the Gujarat panchayat Act,1961 and it is a statutory local body. It is true that District panchayat Ahmedabad is the owner of the disputed premises. Therefore, The Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorized Occupants ) act- 1972 would apply to this case. the opponent has not raised any objection with respect to the ownership of the premises. section-2 (b) "estate officer" means an officer appointed as such by the central Government under section-3, the opponent has not raised any objection with respect to the appointment of the estate officer.
Page 56 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined {25} So, looking at the above provisions of law, the owner of the disputed premises is a District Panchayat Ahmedabad. governed by the State Government it is a statutory local body, therefore such premises fall within the purview of the public premises under section- 2(H) of the The Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorized Occupants ) act-1972. Eviction order passed by the competent officer duly appointed by the State Government under section-3 of the act. Considering the appeal memo and argument on behalf of the opponent, the opponent has not raised any objection with respect to the appointment of the competent officer, therefore it is presumed that the estate officer performed his act as per law and with legal authority.
{26} I have also considered section-2 (a) of The Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorized Occupants ) act-1972....... Section-2 (a):- Competent Officer- means an officer appointed as such by the state Government under section-3. {27} The learned advocate for the opponent argued that the panchayat has not issued notice for terminating the tenancy but such argument can not be acceptable, in my view notice is not required because tenancy is already expired and therefore panchayat had passed resolution no. 147 on 07-06-2012 for taking possession of the premises but the opponent has not expected the terms and condition of the resolution no.147 and he is not paying rent as per resolution no.147. The learned advocate for the opponent argued that the applicant had filed the application before a competent officer on three points (1) rent agreement is expired (2) rent agreement not renewal and (3) property required for bonafide purpose but the appellant has not produced any single evidence. Considering the apple memo rent agreement has expired, the Page 57 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined applicant has passed resolution no. 147 on 07-06-2012 but the opponent has not accepted the terms and conditions of the resolution no.147 and has not paid rent, if he paid rent then definitely he produced rent receipts but has not produced. The applicant has filed an eviction application with specific reasons that rent agreement has not been renewed and property is required for its own purpose. Considering the record it is true that the rent agreement did not renew. The office of the District panchayat Ahmedabad is situated at the area of Lal Darwaja in Ahmedabad City, as the population of Ahmedabad District is increasing day by day, the staff also needs to be increased so that the staff needs a place to sit for doing work, and therefore District panchayat Ahmedabad also needs property for that purpose. Lastly, I am of the view that the opponent is an unauthorized occupant of the disputed premises. It is the legal and moral duty of the opponent to vacate the disputed premises for the interest of the District panchayat Ahmedabad and the public at large also. {30} So, here in this case the owner of the disputed premises is the Ahmedabad District Panchayat. The rent agreement expired in 2010, Ahmedabad District Panchayat as well as competent officers have issued notice under section-4 of the act. All these facts are not disputed facts, even though the opponent has not evicted the premises and therefore the competent officer had passed the eviction order and it is not an Illegal. Moreover the applicant is Ahmedabad Panchayat and it is a local body therefore as per cited above Judgment, the rent act will not be applied. {31} The learned advocate for the opponent argued that the applicant has not produced resolution no.64 and 147. From very beginning i.e 2007 the opponent is a tenant of the disputed Page 58 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined premises and paying rent regularly. The learned advocate for the applicant argued that the rent agreement expired in 2010 and has not been renewed, therefore notice is not necessary to issue to the opponent for terminating the tenancy, the opponent has not been paying rent as per resolution no. 147. Therefore the opponent is unauthorized on the premises and he should be evicted from the premises. The learned advocate further argued that Ahmedabad District Panchayat is a local body and premises are required also for bonafide purposes. In my view the rent agreement is not renewed even though the opponent is in possession of the disputed premises therefore his possession is unauthorized. The opponent is paying rent it does not mean that he is legally a tenant of the disputed premises. Moreover as discussed earlier, the office of the District panchayat Ahmedabad is situated at the area of Lal Darwaja in Ahmedabad City, as the population of Ahmedabad District is increasing day by day, the staff also needs to be increased so that the staff needs a place to sit for doing work and therefore District panchayat Ahmedabad also needs premises for that purpose. {34} So, considering Resio laid down in the above cited Judgment squarely apply to the case on hand here in this case rent agreement is expired in year of 2010 and has not renewed, opponent is not paying rent as per resolution no.147, as per opponent he is paying rent as per resolution no.64. but in my view after 2010 the rent agreement was not renewed even though, if the opponent was paying rent then it would not create tenancy. {35} I have gone through the original eviction application no.22/2022, the applicant demanded a due rent amount of Rs.4,85,655/00 with four times of that amount, so, the applicant wants to recover a total of Rs.19,42,620.00, the due amount is Rs.
Page 59 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined 4,85,655/00 and four times the total amount comes Rs. 19,42,620.00 so why the appellant wants to recover four times amount of due rent amount not stated and has not submitted any written documents with this regard. The appellant has produced a rent agreement with the eviction application, but there is no specific condition mentioned for recovery of due rent amount. the applicant relies upon section-269 of Gujarat panchayat act-1993. {36} section-269......
(1)Whoever not being duly authorized in that behalf occupies is in possession of any property vesting in, or under the control of, a panchayat shall without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this act, he liable to pay in to the panchayat a sum Up to four times the amount of rent which would have been payable to the panchayat for the period of such occupation or possession ,had the property been let by the panchayat. (2) The sum so payable shall be determined by the panchayat in the prescribed manner and thereafter the sum shall become due to the panchayat and the provisions of chapter X shall mutatis mutandis apply to the recovery thereof.
{37} So, the applicant demanded due rent of Rs. 4,85,655/- four times of that amount in the eviction application but competent authority has not passed any order of recovery of due rent. As per the page no.2 of the eviction application rent amount due from September-2017 to April-2022 and total amount is Rs.4,85,655/-. It means that the opponent has not paid due rent to the applicant. the opponent stated in pera18 of his written argument submitted before competent authority, he had paid rent as per resolution no.64. but has not produced receipt or Bank statement, how can I believe that he has paid rent. He also stated that he is not liable to Page 60 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined pay rent with respect to the resolution no.147. In my view as the applicant is an owner of the premises the applicant has the right to decide how much rent to charge. How can an opponent say that he will not accept and will not pay rent as per resolution no.147. If the opponent feels that rent is very excessive, in that circumstance he should vacate the premises Immediately but how can he say that I am not bound to pay rent as per resolution no.147. {38} So far the concern of the recovery of due rent, a competent officer has not passed an order with respect to the due rent or recovery of due rent. A competent officer totally silent about rent demanded by the applicant in his original application, I have also gone through the written argument filed by the applicant vide ex- 15 ,he has mentioned only that the opponent has not paid rent from 2012 but applicant has not demanded due rent before this court. disputed property is public premises within the meaning of section 2(e) of the act. and opponent has to pay due rent, it is the duty of the opponent to pay rent regularly to the applicant. but the situation is the opponent is not paying rent and does not vacate the premises, so the opponent is an unauthorized occupant of the disputed premises.
{39} So far the due rent is concern the applicant has demanded due rent from September-2017 to April-2022 , total 4,85,655/- with four times as per section-269 of the act but considering the Judgment of New Delhi Municipal corporation Vs.Kalu ram reported in AIR 1976 Supreme court page- 1637, Hon'ble Supreme court held that......
"section -7 only provides a special procedure for the realization of rent in appears and does not constitute a source or foundation of rent to claim a debt otherwise time-barred, the word "payable" in Page 61 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined section-7 in the context in which occurs, means " legally recoverable"
{40} So, considering the provision of section-269 of the Gujarat Panchayat act-1993, as well as section-7 of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) act-1971 and ratio lead down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in above cited Judgment, the applicant can not claim time barred rent, panchayat entitled for only legally recoverable rent and same can recover from the opponent.
{41} So, whatever reasons assigned by the competent officer for allowing the eviction application no.22/2022 of the showroom/shop no.01 admeasuring 251.00 (ground floor) with Marginal Space, total 470.00 square feet premises situated at ground floor, District Panchayat Building, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad are not illegal, perverse and arbitrary therefore my answer of issue no. 1 in the negative and for the issue no. 2 i passed following final order
-:ORDER:-
1. The appeal of the opponent/appellant is hereby rejected
2. Order passed by the competent Authority and Deputy Development officer (Revenue) Ahmedabad in eviction case no.22/2022 on.19- 12-2022 is hereby confirmed.
3. The opponent is hereby directed to vacate the disputed premises to the applicant within one month the date of this order.
4. The opponent is hereby directed to pay four times legally due recoverable rent amount to the applicant within one month from date of this order. If the opponent failed to pay, the applicant would be entitled to recover through revenue procedure.Page 62 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined Parties shall bear their own cost.
Decree be drawn accordingly.
The order is declared in the open court on this 23rd day of June, 2023 under my hand and seal.
Date :- 23-06-2023. [ Ambalal R. Patel ] Place:- Ahmedabad. Additional Principal Judge Court No.2, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.
(Unique I.D. Code No.GJ00404)"
14. In the aforesaid sets of facts which are undisputed the following emerge :-
(A) The property in question is of the ownership of the State Government which belongs to the Panchayat. The parties are governed by Section 157 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act. The lease agreement entered into between the parties are governed by the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act. Section 157 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act stipulates that no lease, sale or other transfer of any immovable property vesting in, or acquired by Panchayat can be valid unless such lease, sale or other transfer has been made with previous sanctioned of the competent authority, further in absence of such sanctioned the Page 63 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined period of lease does not exist for more than 03 years. In the facts of the present case, the lease was entered into between the parties on 4.7.2007 which was specifically for a period of 35 months and 29 days in accordance the said lease agreement. The lease stood expired thereafter. In view thereof, in absence of any extension of said lease, the lease having expired the writ-applicant lessee is unauthorised occupant and accordingly to be evicted in accordance with the mandate of the Public Premises Act under the provisions of Sections 2(h) of the Public Premises Act. The Public Premises Act is a complete Code in itself. In view thereof, Transfer of Property Act and Rent Act would not be applicable and the principles of holding out and protection of writ-applicant as tenant would not apply to the facts of the present case.
(A1) The aforesaid has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Reported in AIR 2016 SC 1806, Para-23 and 25 read thus :-
Page 64 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined "23. ....Therefore, the DDA vide notice dated 01.09.1972 decided not to renew the lease of the property in question and terminated the lease in respect of the same, though in law the same was not even required on the part of the DDA in view of the conditions of the lease deed as after the expiry of the original period of lease it stands terminated by efflux of time.
25. Further, in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Anr. v.
Punjab National Bank and Ors. MANU/SC/0198/1991 : (1990) 4 SCC 406, wherein the question for consideration was whether the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 overrides the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,the Constitution Bench of this Court after interpretation of the relevant provisions of both the Acts has clearly held that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 must prevail over the Rent Control Act.....
......The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is a general law governing the landlord and the tenant relationship in general. The specific Rent Control Acts are advancement over the Transfer of Property Act, thereby providing more protection to the tenant from arbitrary increase of rent and ejectment from the rented premises by the landlord. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid case law, it can be concluded that the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable in respect of the public premises."
Page 65 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined (A2) Considering the aforesaid, the said issue is no longer res integra that no notice under Section 116 of the Act was required to be issued as contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ-applicant lessee and that the writ-applicant lessee would not be entitled to any protection on the ground of general laws which otherwise governs civil relationship between the parties.
(A3) Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act will have no application in the facts of the present case which are governed by Public Premises Act and the same is uncontroverted.
(A4) For the aforesaid, it is apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down in the case of B. Sharma Rao H. Ganeshmal and ors. vs. Head Quarters Asst. and ors. reported in (1998) 9 SCC 577, Para-3 read thus :-
"3. ..... The case of the petitioners in the plaint is that they are in occupation as tenants of the premises by virtue of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act and they could not be regarded as unauthorised occupants. In other words in the suits the petitioners have raised the question that they are not unauthorised occupants Page 66 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined and are not liable to eviction under the provisions of the State Act. Having regard to the provisions contained in the State Act we are of the view that the question whether the petitioners are unauthorised occupants or not is required to be determined by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Act and a person feeling aggrieved by such determination can assail the same in appeal before the appellate authority."
In the facts of the present case at the cost of repetition the lease having expired in the year 2010, the writ-applicant lessee is governed by the Public Premises Act and Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act would not be applicable.
(A5) In the case of Sajidali Kausharali Shah v. Municipal Commissioner, reported in 2023 2 GLR 893, It is apposite to refer to Para-12 which reads thus :-
"12. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the respondent- Corporation in following the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act before passing the order. The petitioners were given ample opportunity of hearing. The findings of the appellate forum do not in any manner suffer from any vice of illegality or perversity. The petitioners have miserably failed to show any violation of the provisions of the Act. The provisions of Section 116 of the T.P. Act, on which reliance is placed, will not apply in the case of the petitioners and hence, as Page 67 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined per their statement made before this Court in the earlier writ petition, the case of the petitioners will fall under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Eviction Act......"
In the similar facts the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation v. KC Bothra, reported in 2004 72 DRJ 244, Para-29 read thus :-
"29. In the above view of the matter, the contention raised by Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate representing the Entrepreneurs that the Entrepreneurs were entitled to a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for determination of their lease or that the Entrepreneurs have become tenants by holding over within the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act after the lease having allegedly expired due to efflux of time, holds no water. Taking a different view would render the provisions of the Act nugatory and frustrate the very object with which the Act was enacted by the Parliament."
(A6) The submissions of Mr. Mehul Shah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ-applicant lessee stands answered by the aforesaid positions of law wherein it was held that the principles of "holding over" under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act after the lease having expired due to efflux of time would not be applicable considering the fact that the Page 68 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined aforesaid would frustrate the very object of the Public Premises Act, 1972.
(B) The contention of the writ-applicant lessee that in absence of termination of lease, the lease would not stand determined. The aforesaid was considered in the case of Babubhai Gadarmal vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and ors., reported in 1998 2 GLR 1341, wherein it was held that, once the lease has come to an end by efflux of time, the continuation of the lessee/writ-applicant in occupation of the public premises thereafter is an unauthorized occupation and it falls within the definition of Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972. Para-13 of the said order reads thus :-
"13. The petitioners' possession after the expiry of the lease term is an unauthorized occupation of the public premises. The petitioners have no authority for such occupation as admittedly neither the original owners or the respondent No. 1 has extended the period of lease. The lease has come to an end by efflux of time and the continuation of the petitioners in occupation of the public premises thereafter is an unauthorized occupation as it falls within the said definition as given in Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972. If we go by another aspect that the petitioners are continuing in Page 69 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined occupation even after the expiry of lease period and even if it is taken to be an unauthorized occupation then too after notice given by the Corporation of determining their authority to continue in the possession, their occupation is only unauthorised....."
(B1) In the case of Gandhi Corporation V. Gujarat University and ors., reported in MANU/G]/1227/2017, an identical issue was for consideration of the Court wherein it was held that once the lease had come to an end by efflux of time, the same cannot be ignored, Paragraphs-5, 16 and 18 read thus :-
"5... it was submitted that as the petitioner has not handed over the vacant possession on expiry of the lease, the proceedings have been initiated under the Public Premises Act, 1972 as it is a public premises ...
Moreover, it was also cited before the Court that as per the provision of Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act, the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant, which provides, "on the determination of the lease, the lessee is bound to put the lessor into possession of the property".
16. .....Therefore, both clauses have to be read in a harmonious way. In other words, if one of the parties is not inclined or willing, it could be foisted upon or renewal cannot be claimed as matter of right....
Page 70 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined
18. Another facet of submission with regard to the proceeding under the Public Premises Act, 1972, is also well within the right of the respondent when the petitioner - lessee has failed to handover vacant and peaceful possession on expiry of the periodof lease s1. Therefore, as discussed above, with reference to the provision of the Transfer of Property Act, more particularly Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, when the petitioner has failed to handover the possession, the respondent No. 1 would be justified in resorting the proceeding under the Public Premises Act, 1972 for eviction, which could be said to be in accordance with law or due process. Therefore, no grievance could be made on that count by the petitioner."
(B2) In the case of Cantonment Board vs. Church of North India, reported in AIR 2011 SC 2339, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para-17 held as under:
"17. ....The Estate Officer did have jurisdiction to take action against the Respondent under the Public Premises Act. The period of authorization of the Respondent to occupy the premises was over on 31.3.1984. Therefore, the Respondent was in an unauthorized occupation thereafter under Section 2(g) of the Act. Notice as required, under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act was given. The Respondent had no acceptable defense. ... "Page 71 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined (B3) In the case of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and ors.
v. Mohan Krishnan Abrol and ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC 2060, Hon'ble Apex Court held that on expiry of the lease, the writ-applicant lessee would be held to be in wrongful possession and occupation of the property would be in the nature of unauthorized occupation and therefore, it was open for the competent authority in passing the impugned order under the Public Premises Act, Para-13 read thus :-
"13. .....In the circumstances, we are of the view that on expiry of the lease, respondent No. 1 was in wrongful and illegal use and occupation of the property in the nature of unauthorized occupation and therefore, the competent authority was right in passing the impugned order of eviction under the 1973 Act."
(C) In the case of State of U.P. v. Rup Lal Sharma and ors., reported in 1997 2 SCC 62, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the definition of unauthorised occupation as defined in Section 2(e) and held that, continuation in occupation of by any person after the authority or the capacity in which he was allowed to hold or occupy the premises expired or has been Page 72 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined determined for any reason, continuance in such occupation after the determination of such authority would make the occupation unauthorised for the purpose of the Public Premises Act. Para-7 read thus :-
"7. Unauthorized occupation" is defined in Section 2(g). The definition comprises within its contours occupation of the public premises by any person without authority for such occupation, and also the continuance in occupation of such premises by any person after the authority under which or the capacity in which he was allowed to hold or occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason However, thus continuance in occupation after the determination of such authority would also make the occupation unauthorised for the purpose of the said Act.
(D) In the case of Ashok Caterers v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, reported in 1997 SCC 220, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that expiry of authority to occupy occurs by reason of the terms or conditions of occupation. Any order of eviction on the ground of either "expiry" or "due determination" has to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the statute. Paragraph-4 read thus :-Page 73 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined "4. .....The expiry of authority to occupy occurs by reason of the terms or conditions of occupation. On the other hand, the determination of authority to occupy to be due or valid must be founded on one of the grounds specified by the statute. Any order of eviction on the ground of either "expiry" or "due determination"
has to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the statute."
(E) In the case of Mukundsingh Yadav v. Logendrasingh Z. Yadav, reported in 1994 1 GLR 708, it was held once the lease period expires, ipso facto the occupant becomes unauthorized.
Paragraph-14 read thus :-
"14. Since the permission for continuance of the petitioner in the" disputed premises, as a tenant, beyond the period of one year was not granted, possession of the petitioner would be unauthorised, as defined in Section 2(h) of the Gujarat Public Premises Act. Learned Counsel Mr. Bhatt, for respondent No. 1 has also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court of the land, rendered in the case of Ashok Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank reported in MANU/SC/0198/1991 : AIR 1991 SC 855. The ratio propounded in the aforesaid decision is, squarely, applicable and attracted to the facts of the present case. The contention of the learned Counsel Mr. Bhatt for respondent No. 1 that possession of the petitioner in respect of the disputed premises, after expiry of the period of lease sanctioned by the competent authority, which Page 74 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined was one year, 'ipso facto', would be unauthorized is full of substance."
15. In the facts of the present case and position of law as referred above, the lease agreement having never renewed after 2010, the writ-applicant lessee under Section 2(f) of the Gujarat Public Premises Act are said to be 'unauthorized occupant' of the property in question.
(A) Reliance was placed by Mr. Mehul Shah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ-applicant lessee on the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia, reported in AIR 2008 SC 876, wherein in para-
35 it was held that summary procedure of evidence was required to be followed by the Estate Officer, the same being creature of statute.
In the opinion of this Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the aforesaid decision was deciding the case under the Central Premises Act, 1972 whereunder Rule-5 provides for recording of evidence of such summary of Page 75 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined evidence, whereas no such Rules provide under the Gujarat Public Premises Act. Further in the facts of the present case, the lease stood expired after 2010 for which no evidence is required to be recorded and the facts being undisputed the writ-applicant was held to be in unauthorized possession of the subject premises and liable to be evicted.
(B) The Gujarat Panchayats Act is the special law governing the leasehold relationship between the parties, wherein Section 157 clearly stipulates that in the absence of any sanction from the state government, no lease agreement beyond the period of 03 years can be executed. The argument of continuing to occupy the premises by the writ-applicant lessee herein beyond 03 years as tenant is contrary to the provisions of the Public Premises Act. The only manner in which lease agreement or leasehold relationship can be inferred between the parties is in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayats Act and none other. To the aforesaid conclusion, this Court deems it fit to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Page 76 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined Gram Panchayat, Village Haripura vs. The Commissioner, Ferozpur Division, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 286, Para-11 read thus :-
"11. .....A particular method has been prescribed that how lease to be executed as per Rule 6. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we are of opinion that unless proper lease is granted in the manner provided in Rule 6 of the Rules till that time simply because someone has paid rent that would not entitle him to claim as a tenant. In the absence of statutory provisions and rules thereunder, it is difficult to accept that since the rent had been deposited with the Gram Panchayat that would make them tenants. ...
The question is not the grant of lease on year-to-year basis. The question is whether the Gram Panchayat has recognized the contesting respondent as a tenant or not. Simply someone has paid or deposited the rent with the Gram Panchayat voluntarily after unauthorized occupying the Gram Panchayat land, he would not be deemed to be a tenant. This would be mockery of law. A lawful tenant is one who has been admitted as tenant after following due procedure of law. It is not a one man show of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat that he can surreptitiously takes someone as a tenant without following the procedure under therules,incasethe Sarpanch or any Panch inducts someone as a tenant without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules then such induction of the person will not be authorised or lawful and the Gram Panchayat will not be bound by that."Page 77 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined Considering the facts of the present case and the position of law as referred above, simply because the writ-
applicant lessee paid or deposited the rent with the respondent Gram Panchayat voluntarily after unauthorised occupation of the subject premises the writ-applicant lessee would not be deemed to be tenant. Admittedly no rent receipts are produced by the writ-applicant lessee in the facts of the present case. In view of the fact that, after 2010 the lease stood determined and there is no other lease agreement entered into between the parties. Though there were various communications between the parties, having considered the record it appears that the writ-applicant lessee never accepted the rise in the rent and the draft lease which was submitted by the writ-applicant lessee was never accepted by the respondent authority and in view thereof, this Court is inclined to conclude that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties does not exist after 2010.
Page 78 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined (C) The contention of the writ-applicant lessee that the order impugned passed by the Estate Officer was based on a draft order, does not appeal to this Court considering the fact that even if considering it as a draft order though it was a notice, on perusal of the said documents the Estate Officer has recorded his own satisfaction that the writ-applicant lessee is unauthorised occupant of the property in question which includes recording of submissions, analysis and findings in terms thereof.
(C1) For the aforesaid reason, this Court deems it fit to refer the Special Civil Application No.14992 of 2018, in the case of Mayur Jayantilal Parikh vs. State of Gujarat, Para-23 read thus:-
"23. .....So, it appears that in substance, for not signing the column No.5 of stenographer's register, the charge has been leveled against the petitioner. It is also not the case that these judgments lacked any material facts or findings. It does not appear on the record that these cases have been compared or even randomly examined."Page 79 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined (C2) Considering the facts of the case and position of law as referred above, it is not even the case of the writ-applicant lessee that the order impugned passed by the Estate Officer is lacking any material particulars and in view thereof the said objection does not appeal to this Court.
(D) Answering Mr. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel's contention that, the original plaintiff - respondent herein has relied upon the Resolution No.174 dated 7.6.2012 on the basis of which the writ-applicant lessee has committed default was not produced before the trial Court and that if the said resolution was not produced how the Estate Officer was able to refer and rely upon the same and pass the order in favour of the original plaintiff.
In the opinion of this Court, (1) The said Resolution No.147 was produced by the District Development Officer in the communication dated 27.8.2021 (page-123 of the paper-book).
Page 80 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined (2) The said communication alongwith Resolution No.147 was produced by the writ-applicant lessee before the Estate Officer under in the proceedings under Section 4 and also before the Hon'ble Appellate Court.
(3) Upon considering the Resolution No.147 the learned District Development Officer had rejected the offer dated 18.7.2019 of the writ-applicant lessee by the order dated 2.9.2021 (page-24 of the paper-book).
In view thereof, the Estate Officer had perused and considered the contents of Resolution No.147 before passing the impugned order.
In view thereof, the aforesaid contention raised by the writ-applicant lessee does not appeal to this Court.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings arrived at by the competent authority.
Page 81 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined (A) At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision in the case of Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 283, para-17 read thus :-
"17. There was no perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which the High Court could have interfered. In our view, the High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court in adjudicating the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India...."
(B) In the case of Keshav Shriyan v. IDBL and ors., reported in 2018 SCC Online Bom 14289, wherein it was held that in the proceedings arising out of the Public Premises Act where the lessee was evicted, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in para-5 held as follows:
"5. The findings rendered by the Estate Officer as well as by the Bombay City Civil Court are concurrent findings and being not perverse, no interference is permissible under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
17. Considering the aforesaid position of law and the facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the Page 82 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined concurrent findings arrived at by the competent authorities. In the opinion of this Court, the competent authorities have arrived at impugned reasonings after taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, position of law and facts of the dispute in question wherein the respondent authority requires the premises as stated in para-2 of the legal notice duly produced at page-70. In the opinion of this Court, the orders impugned require no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the foregoing reasons, the orders impugned passed by the respondent authorities are after following due procedure under the Public Premises Act.
18. The direction (4) issued by the learned City Civil Court in the order dated 23.6.2023 in the Regular Civil Appeal No.6 of 2022 wherein it is directed to the writ-applicant lessee to pay the rent four times recoverable to the respondent within one month from the date of the order, is directed not to be acted upon considering the fact that Section 2(e) of the Act Page 83 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined stipulates the lessees to pay the rent due and payable. In view thereof, the writ-applicant lessee having failed to pay rent the aforesaid order came to be passed, however the respondent authority having not challenged the said order passed by the Estate Officer wherein the aforesaid prayer was not granted, the Appellate Authority on its own passed the direction (4) without framing any issue with respect to the same. In view thereof, the same is required to be interfered with and the order to the aforesaid extent is hereby quashed and set aside.
Ms. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel was not in position to controvert the aforesaid which is undisputed.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the captioned writ-applications stand dismissed.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) K.K. SAIYED After pronouncement of the judgment Mr. Mehul S. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. R. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicants lessees Page 84 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12012/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2023 undefined requested to stay this order for a period of two weeks. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aaditya P. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent strongly objected to such request. Looking to the facts of the case and circumstances of the case, operation and implementation of present order not to be implemented for a period of one week from today.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) K.K. SAIYED Page 85 of 85 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:51:39 IST 2023