PUBLIC PREMISES (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act 1971

More documents

Recommendations

Info

space. The witness was cross-examined by advocte Suresh Kumar on 20-4-2000. The witness has admitted that commuters population has increased since the last 4 to 5 years. Advocate for applicants has also cross-examined some other witnesses who were made available for cross by respondents, but none of the witnesses could refute that there is no remodelling going on and that the commuters have not increase over the years thereby causing congestion. After completion of recording of evidence the case was fixed for ARGUMENTS. Thereafter the case was adjourned on a number of occasions on the request of advocate Shri V.D. GAUTAM. Inspite of several reminders neither the respondent nor his advocate came forward for tendering Arguments nor did they file any written arguments. The case was finally fixed for arguments on 24-8-2000 wherein the respondents and his advocate remained present. Advocate Shri Suresh Kumar for the petitioner was present and he argued that the respondent was permitted to occupy a Teh-bazari space at the place marked by the railway administration upon certain specific terms and conditions contained in writing which were accepted to by the original licensee respondent , he stated that the respondent has violated those conditions and constructed pucca structure thereon , The learned advocate stated that the respondent was the licensee and the space was allotted to him under the Licensing agreement. The respondent had not given any documents which shows that the respondent is a tenant and not the licensee. He further argued that the notice were issued in accordance with the provision of the rules and sufficient time was given to them as required under law. The learned counsel has argued that the procedures followed by the petitioner to evict the respondent is in accordance with due process of law as contemplated under the provision of P.P.Act . The learned advocate has also argued that the space is required for remodeling of the station at Mumbra and for removing congestion from the station circulating area and in support of contention he relied on site plan. He further argued it is not the case of respondents that the premises are not public premises. The learned advocate has argued that the respondent be evicted from the space as the premises are required for public purpose and any delay in evicting the respondent will escalate the cost of remodelling project and that the congestion in the circulating area is increasing day by day and that it is becoming very SRCETC/TBM
difficult for the passengers to move easily in the station circulating area because of the presence of these stalls. Advocate for the respondents has argued that the stalls are very old and requested that alternative site should be offered to the stall holders before evicting them. I have gone through the facts of the case and have also perused the documents placed before me by both the parties, I have also gone through the evidence of the witnesses and after hearing to the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for both sides. I am of the opinion that the respondents are in unauthorised occupation of the suit premises and they still continues to occupy the same without any legal right or authority, I am of the view that the project is being delayed and the same is causing hardship to the commuters of Mumbra Railway station as the traffic of commuters has increased tremendously over the years. In my view the requirement of the petitioner is bonafied and in public interest and the project is for the betterment of the public at large. I am of the view that the remodelling can not be allowed to be delayed because of a very few stalls. I have also seen the licence agreement and am convinced that it is not obligatory for the railways to give any alternative site before evicting the occupants. I am also told that there is no policy for providing any alternative site. Therefore I pass the following order under section 5 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act 1971: ORDER I hereby order that the respondent ______________________ in case NO 143 of 1998, and/or any other person occupying the Teh-bazari space No 1 at Mumbra Railway station (East) do vacate the space within 15 days of the publication hereof. In the event of refusal/failure to vacate the premises peacefully the party specified herein above or any person found to be in occupation of the space shall be removed therefrom by the use of such force as may be necessary. Dated: This _____ day of June 2001. P.K. MUDLIAR. ESTATE OFFICER. SRCETC/TBM
Page 1 and 2: PUBLIC PREMISES (Eviction of unauth
Page 3 and 4: Applicable All over India - to the
Page 5 and 6: Respondent - The person who is in p
Page 7 and 8: Notice should cover the following -
Page 9 and 10: Summons - Serve on the respondents
Page 11 and 12: Procedure of serving of orders (1)
Page 13 and 14: Power to require payment of rent or
Page 15 and 16: Powers of Estate Officer (Section-8
Page 17 and 18: IN THE COURT OF ESTATE OFFICER CENT
Page 19 and 20: Proforma “B” CENTRAL RAILWAY Of
Page 21 and 22: Proforma “E” CENTRAL RAILWAY OF
Page 23 and 24: 2. Asstt. Security Commissioner RPF
Page 25: 1) That the show cause notice was r

PUBLIC PREMISES (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act 1971

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?