-•^^ ^ HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR D,B.^HpNLBL^AHRJ^H|RENDRAM8SH8A,_& HON'BLE SHRS R.N. CHANDRAKAR. J J Apeejlarst WritAppealNo,318_of201.Q President Jan Katyan Samits Institute of Natlonal and Forelgn Language, Sector-S, 32 Bungalow Chowk Bhijai through its President Prabhunath Mishra S/o Chotkan Mishra, aged about 55 years, PJo Road No.8, Steei Nagar Camp-1, Bhjjai, Distnct Durg (CG) Versys Respondent Steel 'Authority of Sndia .LimSted, Bhllai Plant BhiJai, District Durg (CG) Present: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the appeliant, Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate wlth SVSs. A. Sengupta, counse! for the respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT (30th September, 2010) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J The appetlant/Socsety was allotted primary schooj bujidlng at Sector-8, BhiJai Nagar for the purpose of running Pre-Primary School and tnstitute of NationaS and Foreian Language on a nomsnal rent of Rs.1/- per month vide Annexure P/5 by the respondent. However, the above altotment was cancelled vide order dated 13th August, 2001 (Annexure P/6) on the grounds mentloned in the order and the Society was directed to hand over vacant possesBJon of the buiJding. On failure of the Society to hand over vacant possesslon of the publjc premises, proceedings were instiated agalnst it before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthonzed Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short "the Act, 1971"). The Estate Officer issued notices to the Society under the provisions of the Act. The Society fiied repiy to the application for eviction. The Estate Officer afforded opportunjty of hearing and adducing evidence to the parties, whereupon the respondent fiied documents and examined its witnesses, whereas no witnesses were examined by the Society. The Estete Officer, vide impugned order of Annexure P/2, passed the order of eviction under sub-sectjon (1) of Section 5 of the Act, 1971 and directed the Socjety to vacate the suit premiises withsn 15 days from the date of publication of the order and on its failure, it was hetd that the SocJety would be {iabje to be evicted from the sasd premises, if need be, by the use of such force as may be necessary. Whlie passing the order, the Estate Ofttcer also lJ3 aOowed damages @ Rs.57,892/- per month from 1,1.2010 tiil vaoation of the premises and damages of Rs.36,630/- for the ctaimed period i.e. 13th December, 2009 to 31st December, 200^. The writ petition filed by the Society has been further dismissed by the impugned order. Learned counseJ for the appellant/Society submits that the tearned Single Judge has erred in holding the Society as unauthorized occupant The Society continued in possessjon of the premises for aimost eight years after cancellation of allotment and the respondent accepted the rent for the said premises without any demure. Thus, by its jmpiied conduct, the respondent has waived the effect of the notice dated 13.8.2001. The order of cancellation of aJJotment of the preniises was passed without afFording the Society an opportunity of hearing agatnst the principles of naturai justice. It js further argued that sjnce vacant possessson ot the premisQs has already been obtained by the respondent, imposition of damages, as claimed by the respondent, for unauthorized use and occupancy of the suit premises w.e.f. 1.1.2010 till vacation of the premjses, was wrongly awarded. However, this aspect has also not been considered in the impugned order. Heard learned counseJ for the appellant and perused the material available on record, including the impugned order. indisputably, the premises was atlotted to the Society vide Annexure P/5 for a particular purpose with certain conditionalities. The allotment was cancelled way back in the year 2001 and the Society was directed to hand over vacant possession and on faiture to do so, reminders were issued by the respondent (vide Annexures P/10, P/12, P/15, P/16, P/17 & P/19). From perusal of the notices, rt is evident that it was specificaliy mentioned in the notice that on faiiure of the Sodety to comply with the notice, proceedings under the reievant provisions for eviction, for recovery of dues and damages wouid be initiated. However, on its failure to hand over vacant possession, an appdcation was fited before the Estate Officer for eviction and recovery of damages and the Estate Officer, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering the evidence adduced by the respective parties, passed the order of eviction and also imposed damages from the date of filing of the applicatjon i.e. the year 2009 tiil vacation of the premises. The Society did not ehallenge the cancedation of ajlotment order passed in the year 2001 and thus, finding ofthe learned Single Judge that possession of the Society became unauthorized after its atlotment was cancetled and as such, the Society became unauthorized occupant as defined under the Act, 1971, is stnctly in accordance with law. .tX 'fs"';^ ^ Since the Estate Officer has awarded damages on the basis of evidence adduced by the respective parties from the date of fijing of the apptication and the same has been again confirmed by the leamed DJstrict Judge in appeal preferred by the Society, we are of the opinion that the Jearned Single Judge has rightly not interfered in the order of the appellate authority. We find no substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is, accordingty, djsmissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^