HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.22982 of 2010 Vanka Rajulu … Petitioner Vs The Assistant Secretary C.E.Department, Port Trust, Visakhapatnam and another … Respondents O R D E R: Heard Sri Karri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Ms.Uma, learned Standing Counsel for the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, and with their consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. This writ petition is directed against the orders passed on 09.09.2010 by the Estate Officer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, granting 15 days time to the writ petitioner for vacating and handover the vacant possession of the quarter bearing No.B-98 situated at Sri Samba Murthy Nagar, K-Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The writ petitioner joined the services of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust as a Peon and subsequently he has been promoted as a Checker. He worked as such in various Engineering Departments of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. But however, he has been subjected to a measure of discipline and he has been ultimately inflicted the punishment of removal from service. He was also convicted by the Criminal Court of a related offence. The conviction has since attained finality. The relationship of master and servant between him and the Visakhapatnam Port Trust is not subsisting ever since the year 2002. During the course of his employment, the writ petitioner has been allotted quarter bearing No.B- 98 situated at Sri Samba Murthy Nagar, K-Colony, for his use and occupation. Now that the relationship of master and servant has come to end, the Visakhapatnam Port has been requesting the writ petitioner to vacate the said premises and hand over possession thereof, so that the said quarter can be allotted in favour of some other employee of the Visakhapatnam Port who is in need of such allotment. Since the writ petitioner has been resisting the attempts, for securing eviction of the writ petitioner, by approaching the local Civil Court etc., ultimately proceedings under the public premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act 1971 (for brevity of ‘Act’) have been initiated against him. Under Sub-section (i) of Section 5 of the aforementioned Act, an unauthorised person in occupation of a public premises can be evicted and accordingly the order now impugned has been passed on 09.09.2010. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner urged that when the writ petitioner herein has preferred C.M.A.No.10 of 2004 before the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the orders passed on 01.12.2003 in I.A.No.273 of 2003 in O.S.No.556 of 2003 instituted by him, to which legal proceedings, the Visakhapatnam Port Trust is a party, the said IV Additional District and Sessions Judge allowed the CMA, holding that the writ petitioner shall not be evicted from the quarter under his occupation except by due process of law. Therefore the respondents should not have taken any steps till such time the Civil suit instituted by him has been decided. I am afraid, this contention is devoid of any merit. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in his judgment dated 10.03.2006 rendered in C.M.A.No.10 of 2004, made the legal position clear that the writ petitioner shall not be evicted from out of the quarter under his occupation without following the due process of law. Since the quarter under the occupation of the writ petitioner belongs to Visakhapatnam Port Trust, the creature of the Major Port Trust Act, 1964, the said premises answers the description of public premises in terms of Act. Hence the Visakhapatnam Port Trust has initiated for his eviction in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. Therefore the present impugned order is passed in accordance with law. Hence, the writ petitioner is entitled to be evicted in terms thereof. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo into the Court today, whereby the writ petitioner has given an undertaking that he will vacate the quarter under his occupation namely quarter bearing No.B-98 situated at Sri Samba Murthy Nagar, K-Colony, by about February, 2011. Inasmuch as he needs time for securing an alternative premises in the mean time, I do consider the request of the writ petitioner as reasonable and deserving consideration. Therefore the memo filed today by the writ petitioner is taken on record. Since the writ petitioner has undertaken to vacate the premises bearing No.B-98 situated at Sri Samba Murthy Nagar, K-Colony, latest by the end of February, 2011, I modify the impugned order to the extent of granting him time for vacating the quarter bearing No.B-98 situated at Sri Samba Murthy Nagar, K-Colony, till 28.02.2011. Till such time, the writ petitioner shall not be evicted or prevented in any manner from continuing to occupy the said premises, but at the same time the writ petitioner shall not undertake any act, which is likely to jeopardise the interest of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust by way of effecting alterations or carrying out destructions to the premises under his occupation. The writ petitioner shall not create any encumbrance thereon and shall not induct any third party or any of his family members or outsiders into possession and thus create third party interest thereon. Subject to these conditions, the writ petitioner shall not be evicted from quarter bearing No.B-98 situated at Sri Samba Murthy Nagar, K-Colony, till the end of February, 2011 or earlier thereto, if the writ petitioner hands over the vacant possession thereof. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust shall not also disconnect water, drainage, electricity thereto in the meantime. With this, Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 21st September, 2010 Note: Issue copy in three days. (B/o) PNV