Eviction proceedings against Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund illegal, Sibal to Delhi HC

Assailing the eviction notice issued by the Centre against the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund in respect of its office situated within the Teen Murti Estate premises, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal today argued that the same was illegal and initiated only to evict it before the 2019 General Elections..“After 2014, a new Government came. The management of the Museum changed and they wrote to the Government to evict the Fund“, he said..Sibal claimed that the Fund has been using the premises for the last 54 years, and it was only in 2018 that it was informed that it was an “unauthorized occupant”. He contended that there was not even a single dialogue between the Fund and Nehru Memorial Museum and Library with respect to vacation of the buildings under the Fund’s possession until June 2018, when the Executive Council of the society requested the government to remove it from the premises..The arguments in the case began today before a Single Judge Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna..The Fund had moved the High Court after the Estate Officer under the Government of India issued a letter in September 2018 contending that the Fund was in occupation of the premises without any authority of law. It thus proceeded under the Public Premises Act (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), 1971 [PP Act] and directed the Fund to vacate the premises within 10 days..Subsequently, a show cause notice was also issued to the Fund under Section 4 of the Act, asking it to show why an order of eviction should not be passed against it..Tracing the genesis of the Fund, Sibal informed the Court that it was constituted in 1964 to conduct and promote scientific education, research, and other charitable work. In 1966, the government set up the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML), which is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act..He further stated that in 1967, the government decided to strike off the land to “the east of Teen Murti House and within the boundary wall of the Teen Murti House” off its books. It thus granted this land and the buildings on it to NMML, Sibal explained..The two buildings being occupied by the Fund was also part of this land. In 1967, NMML’s Executive Council allowed the Fund to use and occupy the two buildings in the east of Teen Murti Estate..Disputing the initiation of eviction proceedings against the Fund, Sibal thus argued that since the government did not have any right over the land, it was not entitled to move against it under the PP Act, as the land had ceased to be public premises..“There is nothing on record to show that the Government has title over the property. They are saying that I need to prove my title. I only need to show that I am not an unauthorized occupant.”.Since the case involved a question of fact pertaining to the title over the property, he argued that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed under the PP Act..“The Estate Officer can only proceed if the Government of India has title.. Once the Estate Officer has no power to question of fact, he cannot proceed under PP Act.”.It was, therefore, submitted that if NMML needed to evict the Fund from the premises, it should have filed an eviction suit before the appropriate forum instead of asking the government to initiate proceedings under the PP Act..“Who is Government of India to terminate (the possession)? The Society has to…and we will deal with it… A registered society cannot tell the GOI to evict me.”.While issuing notice to the Centre last year, the Delhi High Court had granted a stay on the eviction proceedings..The Central government was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta..The matter will be next heard on March 5.