Heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent no.2 - Rajendra Singh Solanki is occupant of a residential house in the Dak Bungalow campus belonging to the petitioner and claims to be its tenant. According to the petitioner the house in dispute is meant for the residence of its Additional Mukhya Adhikari. Total area of the house in dispute which is 1080 sq. meter. The further case of the petitioner is that in the year 1989 respondent no.2 with the connivance of then President of the petitioner Zila Panchyat, previously Zila Parishad broke open the lock of the said premises and forcibly occupied the same and that respondent no.2 has also been Member of Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.) and wielded ample political influence.
Ultimately, petitioner filed application for eviction of respondent no.2 from the premises in dispute under Section 4 and 7 of U.P. Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act 1972 before Prescribed authority/City Magistrate, Bulandshahar and also claimed damages of Rs.3,000/- per month. Respondent no.2 filed reply stating therein that he was tenant at the rate of Rs.350/- per month. The case was registered as case no.1 of 1996. Prescribed authority decided the case in favour of the petitioner and against respondent no.2 through order dated 27.6.1997, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Against the order passed by the Prescribed authority respondent no.2 filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.68 of 1997. IVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 30.10.1998, set aside the order of the Prescribed authority dated 27.6.1997 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed authority to decide as to whether respondent no.2 was valid tenant or unauthorised occupant of the house in dispute with effect from 23.9.1989. The said order of the appellate court has been challenged through this writ petition. During pendency of appeal respondent no.2 filed some documents as additional evidence. The application to adduce the said documents as additional evidence was allowed by the appellate court. The respondent no.2 also filed a letter before the lower appellate court which was allegedly sent by Upper Mukhya Adhikari of the petitioner to respondent no.2 dated 21.9.1993 mentioning therein that the order regarding agreement dated 23.12.1989 was not available.
Absolutely no reason was given by the respondent no.2 as to why he could not file the documents before the Prescribed authority. Some receipts showing payments were also filed. The agreement dated 26.10.1993 copy of which is Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit does not appear to be registered. Moreover, if the building in dispute had been let out in the year 1989, there was no need of executing subsequent agreement.
However, as through the impugned order lower appellate court after admitting certain documents as additional evidence has remanded the case and directed the Prescribed authority to re-consider the matter hence in exercise of writ jurisdiction it it not appropriate to interfere. In the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder affidavit authenticity of the documents filed as additional evidence before the lower appellate court has been denied.
Alongwith rejoinder affidavit a government order 30.10.1985 has been annexed in which it was provided that building of Zila Parishad (now Zila Panchyat) could be let out to other person only if it was not required by the employees of the Zila Parishad/Panchayat. A Government Order of 27.1.1992 has also been annexed alongwith writ petition as Annexure-4 in which it was mentioned that Zila Parishad/Panchayat could allot it to a private person only with the prior approval of the State Government.
Accordingly, Prescribed authority is required to look into all these aspects.
However, the building in dispute is situate over an area of more than 1000 sq. meter and is situate in Bulandshahar which is very near to Delhi. The current monthly rent of such a house may not be less than Rs.15,000/- to 20,000/-. Even if it is assumed that respondent no.2 was tenant still since the date of first order of eviction i.e. 29.6.1997 payment of reasonable rent may be directed vide Atma Ram Properties Vs. Federal Motors, 2005(1) SCC 705. Accordingly it is directed that respondent no.2 shall pay Rs.3,000/- per month rent/damages for use and occupation with effect from August, 2011. Arrears for the period from 1.7.1997 till 31.7.2011 shall be deposited at half the rate i.e. @ Rs.1,500/- per month after adjusting any amount already paid. The arrears shall be deposited within three months failing which respondent no.2 shall not be permitted to participate in the proceedings before the Prescribed authority and the additional evidence taken on record by the lower appellate court shall not be considered by the Prescribed authority. The matter shall be heard on 21.10.2011 on which date both the parties must appear before the Prescribed authority.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.7.2011 RS