Partly allowed

Bhupinder Singh v. Commissioner and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Feb 2011CWP/1596/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged eviction and rent recovery orders under Punjab PPP Act due to alleged non-execution of lease agreement. Court allowed abeyance of eviction if arrears paid in four installments and petitioner agrees to revised fair terms.

What did the court decide?

Eviction orders kept in abeyance pending deposit of arrears in four equal installments and agreement to revised terms.

Bhupinder Singh Vs Commissioner and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 1596 of 2010 . [O&M] Date of Decision: 22^nd February, 2011 .

¶3

Bhupinder Singh

¶4

Petitioner through Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. H.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶8

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶9

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

¶10

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Samrala exercising the powers of the Collector under the Punjab Public Premises and Land [Eviction and Rent Recovery] Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] ordering his eviction from the shop in dispute besides recovery of ` 4,09,840/- towards arrears of rent, as well as against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the above mentioned order of eviction.

¶11

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner being one of the highest bidders was allotted Shop No. 11 on the monthly rent of `785/- by the Panchayat Samiti, Samrala on 26.06.1985. The respondents have relied upon an agreement dated 02.09.1985, execution whereof has been disputed by the petitioner [Annexure P-

¶12

10] whereby the lease period was agreed to be five years and the rent of the shop was liable to be increased every year @ 10%.

¶13

The Statement of Accounts of the above-stated shop [Annexure P-13] reveals that the petitioner started defaulting in payment of rent after expiry of one year of the lease period and did not pay a single penny towards rent during the years 1996-97, 199798 and 2000-01 onwards. The non-payment of rent led to initiation of eviction proceedings at the instance of the Panchayat Samiti, Samrala culminating into the impugned eviction and the Appellate orders.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

¶15

the record.

¶16

The petitioner's contention that the agreement dated 02.09.1985 [Annexure P-10] was never executed and/or acted upon by the parties as no increase in the monthly rent is reflected for a continuous period of five years in the Statement of Accounts [Annexure P-13], can not be accepted for more than one reasons. Firstly, it is a question of fact which both the authorities, on appreciation of the evidence on record, have decided against the petitioner. Secondly, there is a plausible explanation that the lease period was for five years and no increase in rent was made till the year 1990. It was only from July, 1990 that the rent was increased yearly. The fact that the petitioner himself paid more than 13,000/for the year 1994-95, 19,000/- for the year 1995-96 and `20,000/- in the year 1998-99 suggests that he was aware of the increase in the rent and accepted the same without any murmur. It would, thus, be too late in the day to hold that the agreement dated 02.09.1985 was

¶17

never executed. The petitioner has admittedly not paid any rent from the year 2000-01 onwards. No interference with the impugned orders directing his eviction for non-payment of rent or arrears of rent is, thus, called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. However, having regard to the fact that the shop in dispute appears to be the only source of his livelihood, it is directed that in case the arrears of rent amounting to `4,09,840/-, after adjusting the amount already deposited by him under the orders of this Court are deposited by the petitioner, within a period of four months in four equal installments and thereafter he agrees to the revised terms and conditions as may be determined in a reasonable and fair manner by the respondents and if he also undertakes to pay the future rent in accordance with the said revised terms and conditions, the impugned orders shall be kept in abeyance.

¶18

Disposed of. Dasti .

¶19

February 22, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE

Bhupinder Singh v. Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Singh v. Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Vs Krishan and Anr.

Satya Devi Vs P.S.E.B. and Ors.

Rachhpal Singh @ Bali Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh and Ors. Vs Suresh Kumar and Ors.`

Surinder Kumar Goel Vs Pb. St. Warehousing Corporation

Tarsem Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.