STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus RUP LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 17-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-cl 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
A 
v. 
RUP LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS 
DECEMBER 17, 1996 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. T. THOMAS, JJ.) 
B 
Rent Control Law .' 
U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 
1972-Sections 5, 2(e) and 7(g) 'Public Premises'-So wide as to include all C 
such buildings-Whether it actually belongs to Government as such or only 
to a government department or even a building belonging to a private in-
dividual if government requisitioned it or some person on behalf of the 
government has requisitioned it 'unauthorised occupation' the definition com-
prises within its contours occupation of the public premises by any person 
without authority for such occupation-Also the continuance in occupation D 
of such premises by any person after the authority under which or the capacity 
in which he was allowed to hold or occupy the premises has expired or has 
been detennined for any reason whatsoever-Continuance in occupation after 
'l-the detennination of such authority would also make the occupation un-
authorised for the purpose of the said Act. 
E 
The respondent was a government servant and he was allotted a 
quarter on payment of rent by the ollicer in charge of government estate. 
After the retirement of the respondent the appellant State moved the 
prescribed authority under the Act for an order of eviction against the F 
respondent. On 22.3.1978 the prescribed authority passed an order dis-
missing the application holding that it was not possible to hold that the 
house in question was a public premises nor the respondent was an 
authorised occupant. 
Appellant issued a notice determining the tenancy of the respondent G 
and again approached the prescribed authority by an application for an 
order of eviction against the respondent. The prescribed authority dis-
missed the application holding that the order dated 22.3.1978 would 
operate as res judicata. An appeal to the District Judge was also dismissed. 
A writ petition before the High Court also failed. The appellant filed this H 
205 
206. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS(l996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A appeal against the order of the High Court. 
' 
' 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. the previous application for eviction was dismissed on the 
ground that the tenancy was not determined. An application for eviction after 
B determining the tenancy will not therefore be bit by res judicata. [207·B·C] 
2;1. The house belonging to the Government Estate is a public 
premises. [207-H; 208-A] 
2.2 Respondent's continuance in occupation of the premises for the 
C past 10 years after retirement is unauthorised occupation. [208-E-F] 
D 
2.3. It is unfortunate that first respondent was allowed to continue 
as an "unauthorised occupant" in government quarters for nearly a decade 
now after he ceased to be a government servant, when other government 
servants in service are waiting in the queue for accommodation. [208-E] 
2.4. The application of the appellant for grant of an order of eviction 
is allowed. First respondent is directed to vacate the building in question 
on or before the expiry of three months. [208-F] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 16762 of 
1996. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.84 of the Allahabad High 
Court.in C.M.W.P. No. 5404 of 1980. 
Ms. Rachna Gupta for Ashok K. Srivastava for the Appellant. 
Jitendra Sharma Ms. Gunwant Dara and P. Gaur for the Respon-
dents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
THOMAS, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal is by the State of U.P. as they failed to get an order of 
eviction against first respondent Rup Lal Shrama - a retired Government 
servants from a Goverlll!lent quarter as per the provisions of U.P. Public ,. 
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act. 1972 (for short the 
H Act.). 
STATE v. R.L.SHARMA[1HOMAS,J.] 
W7 
Admitted facts are; Rup Lal Sharma was a Government servant. A 
Quarter No. 34 situated at Mohalla Fadirganj, Old Katra, Allahabad was 
allotted to the first respondent on payment of rent by the officer incharge 
of Government Estates, Allahabad. When first respondent retired from 
Government service the State moved the prescribed authority under the 
Act for an order of eviction under Section 5 of the Act. On 22.3.1978, the B 
prescribed authority passed an order of eviction dismissing the application 
by observing that "it is not possible to hold that the house in question is 
public premises or that the opposite party is an una
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.