The case of the petitioner is that by order dated 12.12.1995, the District Jud
ge, Sambalpur, opposite party no.2, permitted him to install a xerox machine in the half const
ructed garage near the gate of the court premises enabling the litigants to get certified copi
es of the documents expeditiously. He was directed to place the roof on the said garage at his
own cost. He completed the construction of the room and invested the amount of Rs.2 lakhs. Th
ereafter, he installed a xerox machine at his own expenses. He used to supply photostat copies
of the documents to the court at a discounted rate so as to enable the parties to obtain the
certified copies of the documents. While the matter stood thus, by notice dated 294 dated 21.6
.2014, vide Annexure-2, he was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises. It
is stated that the licence issued in favour of the petitioner is irrevocable. On the basis of
the said licence, the petitioner has made a permanent construction of the building and incurr
ed expenses. He earns livelihood from the said xerox machine. After receipt of the notice, he
made a representation vide Annexure-3 to provide alternative premises.
Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance an
d filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that vide order dated 12.12.1995, opposite party no.
2 permitted the petitioner to install a photostat machine as a licensee inside the court premi
ses for court purpose. In the said order, the petitioner was directed to place the roof at his
cost on the incomplete construction with a condition to remove the roof at his own cost as an
d when required. He has no indefeasible right to continue in the allotted area. The allotted s
pace is badly required for the institution. Thus the notice of eviction has been issued. It is
further stated that though the petitioner was permitted to continue in the said premises in t
he year 1995, but he has not paid a single pie towards rent or license fee. He has no right to
continue in the space provided. The specific case of the opposite parties is that office of t
he opposite parties has been well equipped with photostat machine and other electronic gadgets
for supply of certified copies to the parties. Therefore, there is no requirement of a photos
tat machine by a private party. In view of the same, he was directed to vacate the premises.
A rejoinder has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Court
today. The same be kept on record. It is stated that the petitioner has no land and building i
n the Sambalpur town or in the village except the parental house inherited by him. He earns hi
s livelihood derived from the xerox machine.
