9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order for eviction of tenants under Recovery of Debts Act. Analysis: 1. The tenants, appellants in this case, were directed to vacate the properties they occupied by the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Act. The tenants challenged this order in writ petitions, which were dismissed by the Single Judge, who allowed them to appeal to the appellate authority under the Act. The Single Judge acknowledged the Recovery Officer's authority to evict occupants of auctioned properties but directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits independently. 2. The High Court analyzed the relevant rules under the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, and their applicability to the situation. It was noted that the tenants had deposited arrears of rent and were in lawful possession before the auction. The Court found that the Recovery Officer's order for eviction did not follow the prescribed procedure and did not differentiate between tenants' rights and other occupants' rights under the rules. 3. Referring to precedents, the Court emphasized that symbolical possession, not actual possession, is granted to auction purchasers when properties are occupied by tenants. The Court cited judgments that upheld this distinction and reiterated that auction purchasers must follow legal procedures to evict tenants lawfully. The Recovery Officer's failure to consider the tenants' rights and the incorrect application of rules led the Court to quash the eviction order. 4. The Court held that the Recovery Officer's order lacked legal sustainability and should be set aside. Despite the Single Judge's direction to pursue the appellate remedy, the Court found the Recovery Officer's order to be fundamentally flawed. Consequently, the Court quashed the Recovery Officer's order and set aside the Single Judge's decision on the writ petitions, allowing the writ appeals. No costs were awarded, and connected applications were closed.
|
