|
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the eviction of Usha Sharma from public premises in Boileauganj, Shimla, dismissing her Letters Patent Appeal and affirming earlier orders of eviction.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma ruled that Sharma's occupation of the premises, locally known as Pashu Padav, was illegal and in violation of the terms of the original lease agreement. The case stemmed from a 2019 application by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. The Corporation said the property was leased to Sharma's father-in-law, Sh. Lakhu Ram, for one year from April 1, 1952, to March 31, 1953, for use as a Cattle Parao. No renewal was executed, yet Sharma continued possession, constructed four structures, and altered the use of the land. Sharma argued that the premises were not public property and instead fell under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. She claimed to have paid rent and said she had been a tenant since 1987, citing earlier correspondence with the Corporation. The Corporation countered that the land was undeniably public, leased originally by them, and governed by the 1971 Act. The double bench's decision follows the August 9, 2024, dismissal of Sharma's writ petition by a single judge, which upheld concurrent findings by lower authorities that her occupation was unauthorised and that she had changed the property's use without authority. In its order, the High Court stressed due process had been followed: "The appellant was not only in illegal occupation of the premises but was using the public property for commercial purposes and earning money since 1957." The bench also underlined the statutory definition of "unauthorised occupation" under the 1971 Act, stating that a person is in such occupation if they hold premises "otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant" or if they act "in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such public premises." The court rejected Sharma's contention that partial rent payment legitimised her possession, reiterating that such payment "does not cure the illegality of continued occupation without authority." With this ruling, the eviction order against Sharma stands, clearing the way for the Municipal Corporation to reclaim the property. (ANI)
|
