AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Akil Kureshi, J.—Issues are common in these petitions. All the petitioners are allottees of plots in GIDC Estate, Naroda. On the ground that the petitioners had failed to pay the dues of the GIDC, eviction proceedings under the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 came to be initiated against them. Competent authority passed eviction orders. Appeals before the District Court failed. These orders are challenged by the petitioners in these petitions.
It appears that before initiation of the said proceedings, the petitioners had filed Civil Suits No.188/01, 187/01, 185/01 and 189/01 respectively before City Civil Court at Ahmedabad contending inter-alia that they have discharged over the liabilities towards GIDC, no dues are outstanding and that therefore they may not be evicted on this ground.
While admitting the petitions, the learned Single of this Court passed following order:
Rule. Ad-interim relief in terms of para 15(B) on condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) before the City Civil Court or before GIDC by every 30 days. Such undertaking has already been filed by the petitioner which is taken on record. It is clarified that if the petitioner succeeds in the civil suit, the respondent Corporation shall refund the amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest.
Mr. Pandya for the petitioner has requested that the suit being Civil Suit No.188/2001 pending before the City Civil Court may be expedited. Accordingly it is observed that on an application being tendered by the petitioner in this behalf the said suit may be disposed of within one year from the date of receipt of such application.
The Respondent will be served within three days from the date of receipt of the writ from the office. It will be open for the respondent to move an application for vacating interim relief under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India after filing reply to the petition and serving the same to the petitioner at least two days in advance. Direct service is permitted.
Similar orders have been passed in other petitions also.
Counsel for the GIDC stated at the outset that on appropriate terms the GIDC would be agreeable to await the outcome of the pending civil suits.
Counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the petitions be disposed of in terms of the interim orders.
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, I find that interim protection was granted to the petitioners on the condition that they shall deposit before the City Civil Court or before GIDC for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- every month. From the order it appears that such an undertaking was also filed before the High Court. In my view, therefore, if the petitioners have fulfilled said condition fully or even substantially, their eviction can be made subject to the outcome of the pending suits. On the other hand, if the petitioners have substantially ignored the said condition for grant of interim protection, on that ground itself, the petitions must fail. The petitioners who have obtained an interim order in their favour and enjoyed for the same nearly six years cannot contend that even if they do not fulfill important condition on which such interim order was granted these petitions must be allowed.
Counsel for the parties were unable to state whether the petitioners have regularly deposited the amount which was the condition on which the interim protection was granted.
Under the circumstances, all the petitions are disposed of with following directions:
(a) In case of the petitioners who have fulfilled the condition of depositing Rs. 50,000/- every month to the extent of 70% or more of the amount payable during the intervening period, their eviction will be subject to the outcome of his/their civil suits.
(b) In such a case out of the amount, if deposited before the Civil Court, the GIDC shall be entitled to appropriate such amount not exceeding (including amount if any deposited directly), which according to them, is a total amount due and payable by the concerned petitioners.
(c) The Civil Court shall permit the GIDC to withdraw the said amount subject to final outcome of the civil suits upon GIDC filing a statement of accounts before the Civil Court with an advance copy to the plaintiff.
(d) In case of the petitioners who have deposited amount which is less than 70% of the total payable under the said interim order, interim order ion their favour shall stand vacated.
(e) In such a case whatever amount deposited by the petitioners before the Civil Court shall be invested till the outcome of the civil suits. However, it will be open for the GIDC to evict such petitioners on the basis of impugned order after filing a statement before the Civil Court regularly amount deposited by the petitioners and that which was required to be deposited as per the interim order of the High Court.
With these directions, all the petitions are disposed of. Rule in each petition shall stand discharged. No order as to costs.