Upon an application filed by the appellant, the Estate Officer by an order dated 26th August, 2005 directed the first respondent to lead evidence wherein his advocate was directed to file an affidavit of evidence.
First Respondent, however, filed an application before the Estate Officer praying inter alia that he should vary his order dated 26th August, 2005 and direct the appellant to lead its evidence first and offer its witnesses for cross examination by the first respondent whereafter he would file his affidavit of evidence.
Reply to the formal show cause numberices were filed by the first respondent on 23rd February, 2004.
Appellant had been taking adjournments in the matter.
557 of 2006 which has been allowed by reason of the impugned order.
The period of lease was for 5 years beginning from 1st October, 1994.
A detailed written statement was filed by him on 3rd September, 2004.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith the first respondent filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court which, by reason of the impugned judgment, has been allowed.
10348 OF 2006 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Appellant Versus KLM Engineering Co. Pvt.
1 has been duly terminated by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.s numberice dated 18.02.2002 Respondent No.1 is a rich and wealthy industrialist who has several flats for his residence.
On 22nd August, 2005 the first respondent moved an application for direction before the Estate Officer.
Allegedly on the premise that the respondent No.1 did number renew the licence by giving two months prior numberice as required, a numberice to quit and handover possession was issued on 13th December, 1999.
Before the Estate Officer, the appellant filed its affidavits of evidence.
Thereafter by a numberice dated 9th February, 2001 the tenancy of respondent No.1 was terminated by the appellant.
Composite application was filed by the appellant under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act before the Estate Officer on 16th January, 2003 whereupon two show cause numberices were issued by the Estate Officer to the first respondents in terms of Section 4 and 7 3 of the Act on 21st February, 2003.
On or about 20th September, 2005 the appellant had filed an application inter alia stating that as it had already placed all the evidence on record, it was for the first respondent to file its evidence and produce witnesses first for cross examination by it and prayed inter alia for the following relief the Opposite Party be directed to show cause to the Statutory Notice issued by the erstwhile Learned Estate Officer under sections 4 and 7 of the PP Act and the case submitted by the Applicants.
8232 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The grounds for first respondents eviction as set out in the application were The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. needs and requires the premises for its own use and occupation for accommodating its own senior executives The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is being evicted from tenanted premises and being called upon to pay exhorbitant rents for tenanted premises Increase in business, globalization of economy and liberalization of policies have necessitated the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to use and occupy the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.s own properties The tenancy of Respondent No.
Respondent No.1 was inducted as a licensee in a furnished flat in an apartment in the said building.
The Estate Officer purported to be satisfied that the occupation of the first respondent is unauthorized and that an order of eviction may have been passed against it issued a show cause numberice to respondent No.1 on 28th July, 2003 under Section 4 of the Act.
Appellant filed an application before the Estate Officer praying for eviction of the respondent and for damages for unauthorized occupation of the premises with effect from 1st April, 2002 Rs.4,91,700/ per month with interest 9 per annum thereupon.
As the said numberice did number companytain any ground for termination of tenancy, another numberice was issued on 18th February, 2002.
5871 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
By order dated 30th January, 2006 the Estate Officer directed the first respondent to lead evidence by the following order Both applications disposed of.
Background Facts Appellant is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1950.
Arising out of SLP C No.
Dates after dates were fixed for cross examination of the witnesses of the appellant.
Notice was also issued on the same date i.e. 28th July, 2003 under the provisions of Section 7 3 of the Act calling upon the tenant respondent to show cause why he should number be required to pay damages.
Replies were given thereto by the respondent.
Ltd. and others Respondents B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
In response to the said numberice the respondents companytended that they had exercised their option to renew the licence vide their letter dated 9th December, 1999.
The matter was adjourned for cross examination of the first respondents witnesses by the appellants advocate.
Ltd. and Ors.
As regards application dated 20th September 2005 taken out by the Applicants, I direct the Opposite Party to file their documents and witness affidavits in lieu of evidence in chief on or before 21.02.2006 companyplete inspection of documents, if any, by 28.02.2006 and adjourn the matter to 03.03.2006 at 3.30 p.m. for further directions.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the Respondent Nos.
Introduction Who should begin to lead evidence in a proceeding under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 in short the Act is the question involved in these appeals.
However, on the premise that numberground of eviction had been mentioned therein, another numberice was issued on 18th February, 2002 enumerating the grounds of eviction.
1 and 2 filed a writ petition before the High Court being W.P. No.
The said application was rejected by the Estate Officer by an order dated 12th January, 2006.
Facts in appeal KLM Engineering Co. Pvt.
