# Plaintiff v. Union of India and others - **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 540 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2004-04-30 - **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 935 of 1980 - **Bench:** Anjani Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/plaintiff-v-union-of-india-and-others-40416 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Sri A.K. Sinha S.C. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 19971S.15-Suit for eviction-Expiry of leaseunauthorised occupation of landJurisdiction of Civil Court barred- A bare perusal of Section 15 quoted above clearly oust jurisdiction of the civil court in this view of the matter the finding of the trial court affirmed by the lower appellate court that a suit is barred by the provision of Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 does not require any interference by this Court. Para 6 Case law discussed: 2003 (51) ALR 700 (Pr. 37) ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 540 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J. Second Appeal No. 935 of 1980 Riyasat Khan ...Plaintiff Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Radhey Shyam Sri R. Dwivedi Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.K. Sinha S.C. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 19971S.15-Suit for eviction-Expiry of leaseunauthorised occupation of landJurisdiction of Civil Court barred- A bare perusal of Section 15 quoted above clearly oust jurisdiction of the civil court in this view of the matter the finding of the trial court affirmed by the lower appellate court that a suit is barred by the provision of Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 does not require any interference by this Court. Para 6 Case law discussed: 2003 (51) ALR 700 (Pr. 37) (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kuamr, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit before the trial court injunction to the effect that defendants may be restrained from evicting the plaintiff from plot no. 61/1 measuring 811 acres situate in cantonment area Shahjahanpur. It is admitted case of the parties that the property belongs to respondent no 1 i.e. Union of India. The plaintiff has set up his case that since the land was leased out by the defendant for a period of five years up to 31st May, 1974 and since the plaintiff has not vacated the land a notice was served upon him dated 29th April 1977 directing the plaintiff to remove his effects from the land in dispute and hand over vacant possession by 16th May, 1977 because the plaintiff's lease has not been renewed from 16th May 1977. The plaintiff's case in short is that after expiry of the lease period since the defendants have accepted rent they cannot evict him. As already stated the trial court dismissed the holding that in view of provisions of Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 the suit itself is barred as the trail court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. On merits also the trial Court has recorded a finding that no lease is subsisting in favour of the plaintiff and after expiry of lease period his occupation over the land is that of an unauthorized occupant for which a notice was also issued on 29th April, 1977 directing the plaintiff to vacate the land by 16th May 1977. Having not being done so the plaintiff cannot now be granted injunction prayed for. The suit was therefore, dismissed. 3. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court maintained the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 4. Before this Court the learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] Riyasat Khan V. Union of India and others 541 same arguments and has relied upon a case reported in 2003 (51) ALR 700 (Para 37) Section 15 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is reproduced below which clearly bars a suit- 15. Bar of Jurisdiction- No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of- (a) the eviction of any person who is in unauthorized occupation of any public premises or (b) the removal of any building structure of fixture or goods cattle or other animal from any public premises under Section 5-A or (c) the demolition of any building or other structure made or ordered to be made, under Section 5-B or (cc) the sealing of any erection or work or of any public premises under Section 5-C, or (d) the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or damages payable under sub-section (2) or interest payable under sub-section (2-A), of that section, or (e) the recovery of- (i) costs of removal of any building structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal under Section 5-A, or (ii) expenses of demolition under Section 5-B, or (iii) costs awarded to the Central Government or statutory authority under sub-section (5) of Section 9, or (iv) any portion of such rent damages costs of removal, expenses of demolition or costs awarded to the Central Government or the statutory authority" 6. A bare perusal of Section 15 quoted above clearly oust jurisdiction of the civil court in this view of the matter the finding of the trial court affirmed by the lower appellate court that a suit is barred by the provision of Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 does not require any interference by this Court. In view of what has been stated above this appeal is dismissed. ---------