Petitioner, lessee of public premises whose lease expired in 1981, challenged an order evicting him for non-payment of rent after 2004 and unauthorised possession. The High Court found non-payment valid and lease expired, dismissing the petition with costs.
Writ petition dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CWP No. 7559 of 2008 Date of decision: 7.5.2008
Ranjit Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Rupnagar and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the petitioner. ****
M.M.KUMAR, J.
The petitioner is a lessee in the public premises owned by Panchayat Smiti, Rupnagar. He was given the lease of the demised premises in 1978 for a period of three years, which was to end on 13.7.1981. In the proceedings initiated under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 in respect of the demised premises, the Collector, Rupnagar recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner has not paid rent after 1.1.2004 and he is in illegal possession of the demised premises. The Collector has further recorded a finding that after the lease period on 14.7.1981 has expired, the amount paid by him has to be treated as damages/compensation. In the concluding para, the Collector has found the petitioner to be in unauthorised possession
CWP No. 7559 of 2008
-2-
of the demised premises. She has recorded a finding that it being a public premises the petitioner is liable to be ejected. She has also directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the Panchayat Smiti, Rupnagar within 30 days. The aforementioned order has been upheld by the Commissioner, Rupnagar by recording the following findings:-
“After hearing the argument of the counsels for both the parties and after perusal of the record of the case received from the lower court, it is found that there is no solid grounds in this appeal of the appellants because he was unable to prove himself as tenant before the learned Civil Court, therefore, learned Civil Court has dismissed his civil suit vide order dated 14.5.2004 and nor he has produced on record any proof that he had filed any appeal against this order before the Hon'ble Appellate Court. During the arguments counsel for the appellant has not raised any argument to rebut these facts. Therefore, it is proved that appellant is in unauthorised occupation of the shop in dispute as mentioned in detail by the lower Court in its orders. While considering these facts it was found that there is no need to interfere in the order dated 20.8.2007 of the lower court, therefore, appeal of the appellant is dismissed and order dated 20.8.2007 of the lower court is confirmed. File be consigned to record room after completing all the formalities order pronounced.”
CWP No. 7559 of 2008
-3-
We have heard the learned counsel at some length. At the outset we have asked the learned counsel about the findings recorded by the Collector that the petitioner is in arrears of rent from 1.1.2004 till date and how the non payment of rent could be explained. The only answer given by the learned counsel is that the petitioner has offered the payment of rent in January, 2008. In that regard reference has been made to demand draft dated 22.1.2008 (Annexure P-67). The petitioner has sought to pay Rs.3312/- by way of demand draft in the name of Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti. We find that non payment of rent itself is a good ground for sustaining the order of ejectment against the petitioner. The other ground that he is in unauthorised possession can also not be set aside because the lease deed in respect of the petitioner has come to an end in 1981 which has not been extended. Therefore, the writ petition is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed with costs.
(M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE
(SABINA) JUDGE
May 07, 2008
anita
3 issues framed by the court
whether the petitioner is liable for non-payment of rent and unauthorised possession of public premises
whether the lease deed validity and expiry justifies ejection order
whether the offer of rent payment in 2008 defeats the earlier ejectment order
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranjit Singh
Deputy Commissioner, Rupnagar
M.M.KUMAR
SABINA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
