Amita Varshney vs. Bhopal Development Authority,Bhopal

Held

The Court held that the petitioners' possession was illegal from the inception as they were inducted as sub-tenants in violation of the original allotment terms, which prohibited subletting. The dismissal of the civil suit filed by the original allottee further weakened any claim the petitioners might have had. The Court found that the petitioners had failed to raise an arguable defence in response to the BDA's notice for eviction. Merely depositing some rent at one point did not confer tenancy rights or the status of tenants by sufferance or holding over. Consequently, the summary procedure adopted by the BDA for eviction was deemed valid. The Court did not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned orders demanding rent, interest, and mesne profits, and the eviction proceedings. The Court directed that the calculated mesne profit, including rent, interest, and GST, along with any accrued thereafter, be recoverable as land revenue, and the BDA was permitted to take coercive steps for eviction. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, who were sub-tenants of a hall allotted by the Bhopal Development Authority (BDA) to the M.P. Women Entrepreneur Association, challenged orders demanding exorbitant rent and interest, and seeking to set aside eviction orders. The original allotment prohibited subletting. The M.P. Women Entrepreneur Association sublet the hall to the petitioners, leading to the cancellation of the allotment. A civil suit filed by the Association was dismissed, and the BDA subsequently initiated proceedings against the sub-tenants (petitioners). The petitioners claimed to have become tenants of the BDA after the cancellation and deposited some rent. The BDA issued notices for eviction and demand of dues, which the petitioners challenged through writ petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, as sub-tenants inducted in violation of the original allotment terms, have any legal right to retain possession of the premises? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Bhopal Development Authority (BDA) was required to conduct a detailed inquiry before passing an order of eviction against the petitioners, even if their possession was considered illegal? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they had become tenants of the BDA after the cancellation of the original allotment and had deposited rent, thus establishing a right to possession. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Padmavati Devi, Thummala Krishna Rao, and Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh to argue that even encroachers are entitled to an opportunity of hearing and that summary procedures cannot be adopted if an arguable defence is made out. Respondent's (BDA) Arguments: The BDA contended that the petitioners' possession was illegal from the outset due to subletting, which was contrary to the allotment conditions. They argued that the civil suit dismissal supported their position and that the petitioners had failed to establish any right to retain possession. The BDA also asserted that the notice issued for eviction and the subsequent proceedings were in accordance with the relevant rules and that no arguable defence was raised by the petitioners.