AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prasenjit Mandal, J.—This application is at the instance of the opposite party no. 1 and is directed against the order dated June 3, 2013 passed by the learned Estate Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kolkata (henceforth B.P.C.L. in short) thereby rejecting the prayer of the opposite party no. 1/petitioner herein for expunction of his name from the proceeding under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The B.P.C.L. instituted the aforesaid proceeding against the opposite party no. 1/petitioner herein and the opposite party no. 2 Agri-Horticultural Society of India, No. 1, Alipore Road, Kolkata - 700027 praying for eviction of the unauthorised occupants of the opposite party no. 1, damages and other reliefs.
In that suit, the petitioner herein entered an appearance and filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. praying for expunction of his name from the said proceeding contending, inter alia, that he is not connected with the said proceeding at all under the provisions of the said Act. That prayer was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
Now, the question is whether the Estate Officer is justified in rejecting the prayer of the opposite party no. 1/petitioner herein.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the main relief sought for in the aforesaid proceeding under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is against the opposite party no. 1 contending, inter alia, that the opposite party no. 1 is unauthorisedly occupying the said premises from the very beginning w.e.f. October 13, 2011 and so, appropriate reliefs as mentioned above have been sought for against him.
The contention of the petitioner is that, he is not connection with the said matter and on the basis of a mobile number only, he has been implicated and the reliefs as indicated above, sought for against him under the proceedings of the said Act cannot be maintained.
Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that save and except, the mobile number as indicated in the application, there is no other materials to connect the petitioner with the unauthorised occupation of the premises in question. So, the Estate Officer was not proper in rejecting the prayer.
On the other hand, Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party has drawn my attention to various pages of the application and thus, he has submitted that in fact, the opposite party no. 1 is in unauthorised occupation of a portion measuring about 600 sq. ft. on the South-West corner of the aforesaid land abutting Alipore Road and also has made an unauthorised construction for running an eatery in the name of Style Drive in Snacks Bar. He has also drawn my attention that when the notice was sent to the opposite party no. 1 by register post with A/D, such letter was accepted by him vide Page No. 66 signifying that he has been staying there, though the learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised dispute of such signature contending, inter alia, that the presumption of the signature therein has been rebutted by the opposite party no. 1/petitioner herein.
Nowhere from the materials on record I find that when the notice of show cause was issued u/s 4 of the 1971 Act upon the opposite party no. 1 by Annexure P-5 at Page No. 54, the opposite party gave a reply to the show cause notice u/s 4 of the 1971 Act denying the material allegations against him.
The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 was enacted to provide a speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises. The said Act has been re-enacted and after re-enactment, the Act has become the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. It was felt necessity to remove the defect of the earlier Act of 1958 so that the object of a speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorised occupants of a public premises could be made, giving the retrospective effect of the Act from September 16, 1958. Since a speedy machinery has been launched for eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises at early, a summary procedure has been adopted in the said Act for the purpose of getting back the possession from the unauthorised occupants, that is why, the details of the C.P.C. will not be applicable and the said Act deals how the matters under the provisions of the said Act are to be dealt with. The said Act nowhere declares that the expunction of the name is permissible under any provision of the Act.
Moreover, after filing of the show cause notice by the concerned opposite party, the next recourse is to record the evidence and at that time the opposite party no. 1/petitioner herein is to take appropriate steps in conformity of his defence and the matter shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the said 1971 Act. Such a recourse has already been adopted by the Estate Officer.
There being no provision for expunction and in view of the application being one under the provisions of the said Act against the petitioner and the Agri-Horticultural Society of India (proforma defendant), I am of the view that the said proceeding shall proceed in accordance with law and that there is no scope for expunction of the name of the petitioner only on the basis of his application. The question framed is thus decided. There is no scope of interference with the impugned order.
The application is, therefore, dismissed.
Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
The interim order of stay is hereby vacated. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.