Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Supreme Court Of India
  4. /
  5. 1995
  6. /
  7. January

Kuldeep Singh vs Ganpat Lal & Anr

Supreme Court Of India|05 December, 1995
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Summary

Issue: Whether the respondents (employees of the Union of India) can be evicted from the tenements they are occupying.
Rule: Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
Application: The respondents, being employees of the Union of India, are considered unauthorized occupants under the Act, and the Union of India is seeking their eviction.
Conclusion: The respondents are unauthorized occupants under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and the Union of India is entitled to seek their eviction.
PETITIONER:
LUMBINI NAGAR COOP. HOUSINGSOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT17/08/1995 BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J) CITATION:
JT 1995 (6) 623 1995 SCALE (5)159 ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
Leave granted.
O R D E R Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on July 28, 1995 and the order dated August 11, 1995, affidavit has been filed in which it has categorically been stated that out of 169 original allottees, 57 are employees of respondent No. 2 and are described as departmental employees. Out of 112 other allottees, 9 allottees were given notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Remaining 103 persons are the original allottees who are still in occupation of their respective tenaments with their families. They neither sold nor transferred their tenaments and they are continuing to reside in the respective tenaments even till date.
Mr. Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has stated across the bar that no action is being taken against any person other than the nine allottees who are said to have parted with their right to remain in possession of their respective tenaments. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that these 9 allottees, though have entered into agreements to sell their properties, the same is subject matter of the pending suit in the High Court. Therefore, their possession cannot be disturbed.
Since the High Court, both the Learned Judge as well as the Division Bench, was not inclined to grant injunction as sought for, we are not persuaded to take a different view in that behalf. Injunction being a discretionary order, the High Court has refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the nine persons. Under these circumstances, we do not deem it expedient under Article 136 to upset the order of the High Court.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Kuldeep Singh vs Ganpat Lal & Anr

Court

Supreme Court Of India

JudgmentDate
05 December, 1995
Judges
  • Kuldip Singh
  • S Saghir Ahmad Act Headnote