M.M. Khurana vs Estate Officer Cantonment Board and Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—The Petitioner, against whom proceedings under the Public Premises Act were initiated and against whom the order for eviction u/s 5(1) of the Act was passed by the Estate Officer, Cantonment Board, Agra Circle Agra on 12th May, 2006, has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 17th January, 2011 by which the application filed by the Petitioner for adding grounds in the memo of appeal was rejected by the Appellate Court.

It transpires from the records of the writ petition that the lease of Bungalow No. 65-A, Taj Road, Agra Cantt. Agra bearing No. GLR Survey No. 478 expired on 31st December, 1978 and was not renewed. Notice u/s 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') was served upon the Petitioner to which he filed a reply. The Estate Officer passed an order on 12th May, 2006 for eviction of the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Agra u/s 9 of the Act in 2006. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was moved by the Petitioner for adding grounds 11-A to 11-E in the memo of appeal. The amendment application was rejected.

The grounds sought to be added mention that a general public notice was issued by the Respondents for renewal of the lease pursuant to which the Petitioner filed an application which is pending. In ground 11-E the Petitioner mentions that because of these facts it was absolutely essential that the matter be remitted back for deciding it afresh.

The Appellate Court has noticed that the issue that was required to be decided in the appeal is whether the Petitioner was an unauthorized occupant or not. The Appellant had not mentioned that the lease had been renewed. The Appellate Court, therefore, found that the grounds sought to be added had no relevance to the controversy involved and, therefore, rejected the application.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court could not have determined the correctness of the cause raised in the amendment application and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Ors. v. K.K. Modi and Ors. 2006(2) AWC 1986.

Sri C.B. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order which may call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The decision in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra) does not help the Petitioner as the Appellate Court has not decided the issue raised in the amendment application on merits. The Appellate Court was required to examine whether the Amendment Application was necessary for determining the real question and controversy between the parties and this is what has been done by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has noticed that mere pendency of the application does not mean that the Petitioner is not an unauthorized occupant.

There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned order.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.