Assurance Given by Union of India to Conduct Eviction Proceedings Independently of District Court's Judgment
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has admitted a Regular Second Appeal filed by Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. against the Union of India, challenging the judgment of the District Judge, which had set aside the trial court's decision. The appeal, heard by Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, was filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and concerns the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
The core issue in this appeal stems from a notice dated 11th June 2026, issued by the Union of India, indicating an imminent threat of eviction under the Public Premises Act. The appellant sought urgent ad-interim relief to stay the eviction process, contending that the notice was influenced by the District Court's judgment. However, during the proceedings, the respondent, represented by the learned CGSC, assured the court that the eviction proceedings would be conducted independently of the impugned judgment.
The assurance from the respondent was pivotal, as it led the Delhi High Court to decide against granting an ad-interim stay on the impugned judgment. The court emphasized that the assurance provided by the Union of India would bind the respondent to ensure the independence of the eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act.
The court has directed that the records from both the District Court and the Trial Court be summoned for further consideration. The matter is now listed for hearing before the Roster Bench on 23rd July 2026. The High Court's decision underscores its commitment to ensuring that statutory proceedings remain unaffected by prior judgments, thereby upholding the rule of law.
The appellant's legal team, led by Senior Advocates Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, argued the imminent threat posed by the eviction notice, while the respondent's counsel maintained that due process would be strictly followed under the Public Premises Act.
As the case progresses, the legal fraternity closely watches the implications of the High Court's directions on independent statutory proceedings, which may set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Bottom line:-
An appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was admitted, challenging the judgment of the District Judge which set aside the trial court's judgment. Proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, were directed to be independent of the impugned judgment, with the respondent bound by the assurance given in court.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 100, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XLI Rule 5, Section 151
Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2926542
