Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation ­ Opponents

[1.0] Present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been preferred by the applicant herein – original appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2002 passed by the competent Officer in Reference No.5454 under the provisions of Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Eviction Act”) as confirmed by the learned District Court by order dated 30.06.2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.101/2002. [2.0] Proceedings under the Eviction Act came to be initiated by the competent Officer, more particularly, under Section 4/5 of the Eviction Act for recovery of the amount due and payable with respect to the plot in question and also for eviction. That the first notice was issued upon the applicant on 21.03.2002 alleging inter­alia that a sum of Rs.1,63,240/­ towards the rent/installment of the plot in question is due and payable and therefore, it was alleged that the applicant has contravene the terms under which he was authorized to occupy the premises in question. It was stated in the notice that it is proposed to make an order of eviction against him to vacate the said premises and therefore, in pursuance to the provisions of sub­section (1) of section 4 of the Eviction Act, the applicant was called upon to show cause in writing, why the proposed order of eviction should not be made. It appears that the said notice was send through RPAD and the family member of the applicant accepted the same. That thereafter the competent Officer passed the order dated 28.11.2002 in exercise of powers conferred under sub­section (2) of section 5 of the Eviction Act and appointed one officer to take over the possession of the said premises.

[2.1] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the competent Officer under sub­section (2) of section 5 of the Eviction Act, the applicant preferred Appeal before the District Court, Surat which has been dismissed by the learned District Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the competent Officer dated 28.11.2002 passed under sub­section (2) of Section 5 of the Eviction Act, the applicant herein has preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the CPC.

[3.0] Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that as such no notice under sub­ section (1) of Section 4 of the Eviction Act was served upon the applicant and therefore, relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Jagdeep Industries v. GIDC reported in 2001 (3) GLH 455, it is submitted that all consequential orders more particularly the order passed under sub­section (2) of section 5 of the Eviction Act deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that Appellate Court has not considered the above. Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has further submitted that even the applicant is ready and willing to pay the same amount. However, if the rate of interest is reduced by the GIDC and installments are given. No other submissions have been made.

[4.0] Application is opposed by Shri Ruturaj Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the GIDC. It is submitted after verifying from the record of the case that infact the notice issued under sub­ section (1) of section 4 of the Eviction Act was issued upon the applicant which has been accepted by the family member of the applicant and at that time no grievance has been made. It is submitted that only when the orders are passed against the applicant, the applicant has come out with a case that he was not served with the notice under sub­section (1) of section 4. So far as the request of the applicant to reduce the rate of interest and give installments is concerned, it is submitted that as such sufficient opportunities have been given to the applicant to make the payment. However, since 2003, no payment has been made by the applicant. It is submitted that infact in between there was amnesty scheme which has not been availed by the applicant. It is submitted that as the rate of interest is charged as per the policy and contractual rent, it is not possible for GIDC to reduce the rate of interest. It is submitted that even today also, the GIDC is ready and willing to accept the amount in installments. However, the applicant is not ready and willing to make the payment. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Civil Revision Application.

[5.0] Heard the learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. As stated herein above, the only contention on behalf of the applicant was that the notice under sub­section (1) of Section 4 of the Eviction Act was not served upon the applicant. To verify the same, this Court called for record and proceedings of the case and it is found that the notice issued upon the applicant under sub­section (1) of section 4 was send by RPAD which has been accepted by the family member of the applicant. At the relevant time, no grievance was made. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the subsequent orders are vitiated and/or are illegal. Under the circumstances, the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant will not be of any assistance to the applicant.

[5.1] Now, so far as submission on behalf of the applicant to reduce the rate of interest and to make the payment and to grant installments is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such the interest has been charged by the Corporation as per the policy and as per the contract. Therefore, the request on behalf of the applicant to reduce the rate of interest cannot be accepted. It is also required to be noted that as on 24.02.2010, a sum of Rs.6,22,193/­ was due and payable and no amount has been paid since 2003. Sufficient opportunities have been given to the applicant to make the payment, however, no payment has been made. Even this Court was inclined to consider the request of the applicant for installments, provided some reasonable amount is paid. To that the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has shown his inability by submitting that unless the rate of interest is reduced, it will not be possible for the applicant to make payment.

[6.0] Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is no jurisdictional error much less an error of law committed by both the authorities/Courts below which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the CPC.

[7.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present Civil Revision Application which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad­ interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.

(M.R. Shah, J.) menon