Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajabhau Shivram Parale, was allotted Plot No. 8 at Great Nag Road, Nagpur on licence by the Central Railway for commercial purposes. On 27.12.1993, the Estate Officer passed an eviction order directing the appellant to vacate the plot and pay arrears of licence fee of Rs. 7,39,793/- with interest at 12% per annum. The appellant claimed he had no knowledge of the statutory notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 or the eviction order until 1996. He filed a statutory appeal under Section 9(1) of the Act along with an application for condonation of delay of 946 days (2 years 7 months and 3 days) before the 9th Additional District Judge, Nagpur. The appellate authority dismissed the condonation application, and the learned Single Judge upheld that order. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench considered whether the appellant had proven sufficient cause for the delay. The court noted that the appellant's explanation of lack of knowledge was not supported by any evidence, and the delay was inordinate. The court held that the appellant failed to make out a case for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 9(1) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - The appellant sought condonation of 946 days delay in filing appeal against eviction order - The court held that the appellant failed to prove sufficient cause for the delay as the explanation of lack of knowledge was not supported by evidence - The appeal was dismissed (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant had proven sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 946 days in filing the statutory appeal under Section 9(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The order dated 26.09.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 603/2006 is upheld.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act
- 1971
- Section 9(1)
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (11) 110
Letters Patent Appeal No. 273 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 603 of 2006 (D)
R. K. Deshpande, Milind N. Jadhav
Shri J. K. Matale for Appellant, Shri P. S. Lambat for Respondents
Rajabhau S/o. Shivram Parale
Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur and Estate Officer, Central Railway, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against order of learned Single Judge upholding dismissal of condonation of delay application in statutory appeal under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought condonation of delay of 946 days in filing statutory appeal against eviction order.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed he was not served with statutory notice and eviction order and had no knowledge until 1996.
Previous Decisions
Estate Officer passed eviction order on 27.12.1993; Appellate Authority dismissed condonation application on 28.01.1998; learned Single Judge upheld that order on 26.09.2006.
Issues
Whether the appellant had proven sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 946 days in filing the statutory appeal under Section 9(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant submitted that he had no knowledge of the statutory notice and eviction order until 1996, and therefore the delay was justified.
Respondents argued that the appellant failed to prove sufficient cause for the inordinate delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to prove sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 946 days in filing the statutory appeal under Section 9(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The explanation of lack of knowledge was not supported by evidence, and the delay was inordinate.
Judgment Excerpts
The limited question raised before us is whether the Appellant has proven that there were valid reasons given for condonation of delay in filing the statutory appeal as contemplated under the Eviction Act.
The Appellant has not been able to prove that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Procedural History
Estate Officer passed eviction order on 27.12.1993. Appellant filed Misc. Civil Application No. 559/1996 for condonation of delay before 9th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, which was dismissed on 28.01.1998. Appellant challenged that order in Writ Petition No. 603/2006, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 26.09.2006. Appellant then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 273/2006.
Acts & Sections
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971: Section 4(1), Section 9(1)
