Blog

DATED: 25.08.2023
CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.677 of 2014
Introduction:
This case involves a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of vacating the stay in CMP.No.1202 of 2012 in CMA.No.83 of 2012. The petitioner, Mrs. A. Ramatulasi, represented herself, while the respondents were represented by legal counsel. The dispute revolves around the petitioner’s claim to be considered an authorized occupant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in relation to a government quarters property.

Background:
The petitioner is the estranged wife of Mr. A. Venkateswara Rao, an Income Tax Department employee. They had lived together in a government quarters property allocated to Venkateswara Rao as part of his service entitlement. Due to their marital discord, they filed divorce and restitution of conjugal rights proceedings. During this period, Venkateswara Rao was transferred to a different location.

Key Arguments:
The petitioner claimed that since she had lived with Venkateswara Rao in the government quarters, it should be considered a “matrimonial home” under the Domestic Violence Act, and she should be protected under the Act. She contended that she should not be treated as an “unauthorized occupant” under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. However, the Estate Officer attached to CPWD deemed her an unauthorized occupant and initiated eviction proceedings.

Court Proceedings:
The petitioner appealed against the eviction order, obtaining an interim stay in CMP.No.1202 of 2012. However, during a hearing, she expressed loss of confidence in the court and refused to argue the case, leading to the vacation of the stay. Subsequently, she filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 against the order vacating the stay.

Court’s Decision:
Justice C.V. Karthikeyan carefully analyzed the facts, focusing on the implications of vacating the stay in an eviction proceeding. The court emphasized that eviction proceedings would lose their purpose if a stay was not granted pending the appeal. It was pointed out that the issue of whether the government quarters property should be considered a matrimonial property or not was a matter for the appellate court (CMA.No.83 of 2012) to decide.

Justice Karthikeyan acknowledged that the proceedings had been pending since 2012, and due to the petitioner’s interim stay from the court, she had been occupying the property for 11 years. Considering this, the court set aside the order vacating the stay and made the stay granted by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, absolute. The appellate court was directed to dispose of the appeal (CMA.No.83 of 2012) within eight weeks from the date of the order or by November 6, 2023, at the latest. The court requested a report on the appeal’s completion.

Conclusion:
The court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of balancing the interests of parties in eviction proceedings. It recognizes the significance of maintaining the status quo during the appeal process to avoid rendering the appeal ineffective. While refraining from making a definitive ruling on the property’s characterization as matrimonial, the court ensured that the eviction process would proceed fairly and that the appeal would be decided promptly. This case demonstrates the court’s role in safeguarding the rights of parties and maintaining a just and efficient legal process.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreeya S Shekar

Click here to view judgement