Lumbini Nagar Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/672751 |
| Subject | Civil |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Aug-17-1995 |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 7896 of 1995 |
| Judge | K. Ramaswamy and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ. |
| Reported in | JT1995(6)SC623; 1995(5)SCALE159a; (1996)9SCC456; [1995]Supp2SCR815 |
| Acts | Constitution of India - Article 136; Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 |
| Appellant | Lumbini Nagar Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and ors. |
| Respondent | Union of India (Uoi) and ors. |
| Appellant Advocate | B.A. Desai,; Reema Bhandari and; M.N. Shroff, Advs |
| Respondent Advocate | A.S. Nambiar, ; A.S. Rawat, ; D.S. Mahra, ; |
| Prior history | From the Judgment and Order dated 11-10-1989 of the Bombay High Court in 1135 of 1989 |
Excerpt:
.....thus, the direction of giving status, wages and all other benefits of permanency applicable to the post of cleaners to the complainants, in the facts and circumstances, is justified and warrants no interference.
- 4. since the high court, both the learned judge as well as the division bench, was not inclined to grant injunction as sought for, we are not persuaded to take a different view in that behalf......the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971. remaining 103 persons are the original allottees who are still in occupation of their respective tenements with their families. they neither sold nor transferred their tenements and they are continuing to reside in the respective tenements even till date.3. mr. nambiar, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has stated across the bar that no action is being taken against any person other than the nine allottees who are said to have parted with their right to remain in possession of their respective tenements. the learned counsel for the appellants contended that these 9 allottees, though have entered into agreements to sell their properties, the same is subject matter of the pending suit in the high court......
Judgment:ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on July 28, 1995 and the order dated August 11, 1995, affidavit has been filed in which it has categorically been stated that out of 169 original allottees, 57 are employees of respondent No. 2 and are described as departmental employees. Out of 112 other allottees, 9 allottees were given notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Remaining 103 persons are the original allottees who are still in occupation of their respective tenements with their families. They neither sold nor transferred their tenements and they are continuing to reside in the respective tenements even till date.
3. Mr. Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has stated across the bar that no action is being taken against any person other than the nine allottees who are said to have parted with their right to remain in possession of their respective tenements. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that these 9 allottees, though have entered into agreements to sell their properties, the same is subject matter of the pending suit in the High Court. Therefore, their possession cannot be disturbed.
4. Since the High Court, both the Learned Judge as well as the Division Bench, was not inclined to grant injunction as sought for, we are not persuaded to take a different view in that behalf. Injunction being a discretionary order, the High Court has refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the nine persons. Under these circumstances, we do not deem it expedient under Article 136 to upset the order of the High Court.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.