Eviction under the Public Premises Act requires effective service of show-cause notice and meaningful hearing.

Respondent No. 2, Ircon Infrastructure and Services Ltd., sub-leased the Multi-Functional Complex at Bilaspur Railway Station to the petitioner under agreements dated 08.12.2013 and 26.08.2014 for a 15-year commercial term.

The petitioner paid the stipulated one-time amount, security deposits and monthly rent until it allegedly defaulted in payment from May/December 2019.

The petitioner attributed the default to the COVID-19 pandemic, suspension of train services, reduced passenger movement and closure of Gate No. 1 of the railway station.

Respondent No. 2 issued demands and ultimately terminated the sub-lease on 05.01.2023, claiming outstanding dues of approximately ₹2.70 crore, and initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

The Estate Officer issued a notice under Section 4(1) and, treating the proceedings as effectively uncontested, ordered eviction on 14.06.2024. The petitioner’s statutory appeal under Section 9 was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Bilaspur, on 20.03.2025.

In proceedings under Article 227, the petitioner challenged the orders principally on the ground that the show-cause notice had not been effectively served and that it had been denied a meaningful opportunity of hearing.

1. Whether the Estate Officer complied with the mandatory requirements of service of notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 before passing the eviction order.

2. Whether the petitioner was afforded a real and effective opportunity to file its defence, produce evidence and receive a personal hearing before the eviction order was passed, consistently with the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the orders of the Estate Officer and the Principal District Judge suffered from jurisdictional error, material irregularity or violation of natural justice warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Section 4 requires the Estate Officer to issue an effective written show-cause notice specifying the grounds of proposed eviction and calling upon the occupant to appear with evidence and seek personal hearing; Section 4(3) prescribes service, including affixture on the outer door or another conspicuous part of the premises.

Section 5 requires the Estate Officer to consider the cause shown, the evidence produced and any requested personal hearing before recording reasons and ordering eviction.

The Court further applied the audi alteram partem principle, namely that no person may be condemned unheard, particularly where the order entails serious civil consequences.

Under Article 227, the High Court may interfere where subordinate proceedings disclose jurisdictional error, perversity, material procedural irregularity or breach of natural justice, notwithstanding the ordinarily limited scope of supervisory review.

The record did not satisfactorily establish that the Section 4 show-cause notice had been effectively served on the petitioner. The only returned speed-post envelope bore the endorsement “left”, and the record contained no order sheet dated 03.06.2024 showing the manner in which service was effected or any proof of statutory affixture.

The record also did not show that the detailed eviction application filed by Respondent No. 2 had been supplied to the petitioner, thereby impairing its ability to answer the allegations.

Although a person appeared on 11.06.2024, the Estate Officer treated the appearance as insufficient because the person could not establish his identity or authority; the Court held that this did not cure the foundational defect concerning effective service and meaningful opportunity.

The Estate Officer thereafter proceeded swiftly without ensuring that the petitioner could file a reply or lead evidence, while the appellate court failed to adequately address the defect in service.

Since the eviction proceedings had serious civil consequences, strict adherence to Sections 4 and 5 and natural justice was necessary.

The Court therefore found that the subordinate authorities had erred in treating the statutory notice requirement as satisfied.

The Court expressly declined to adjudicate the merits of the alleged arrears, contractual termination, force majeure defence or other substantive claims.

Eviction Case No. E/Bilaspur/LC/01/2024 was restored to the file of the Estate Officer.

The parties were directed to appear on 15.09.2026, and the petitioner was permitted to file its reply and lead permissible evidence.

The Estate Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, preferably within two months from the first hearing, without being influenced by observations on the merits in the High Court’s order.

If the petitioner failed to appear on the specified date, the Estate Officer could proceed in accordance with law without issuing any further notice, subject to the statute.

There was no order as to costs.