Dismissed

Kanchhi Ram v. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2012CWP/16938/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court summarily dismissed a writ petition challenging eviction from an 80 sq ft shop due to non-renewal of lease. Relying on a prior similar judgment, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Municipal Corporation for alternative allotment.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a representation before the Municipal Corporation for allotment of any other space or site to be considered as per law.

Kanchhi Ram Vs Municipal Corporation… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.16938 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.16938 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.2.2012

Kanchhi Ram

...Petitioner

Versus

Municipal Corporation, Faridabad

¶9

...

¶10

Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶12

Present: Mr.Vikas Lochab, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .

¶15

The petitioner was allotted a 80 square feet shop in Sabzi Mandi, Faridabad with effect from 23.1.1992 to 30.4.2001 on a monthly rent of Rs.200/- and lease was, however, subsequently not extended. The petition under sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for ejectment was filed against the petitioner for non-payment of rent. The order of eviction dated 10.12.2008, Annexure P.3 was passed by the Collector which was upheld on appeal by the Commissioner vide order dated 6.8.2010 Annexure P.2. The petitioner has impugned the said orders in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

CWP No.16938 of 2010

¶17

¶18

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that identical writ petition filed by other similar allottees was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 31.5.2011 in CWP No.20560 of 2010 ( Captain M.S.Sharma v. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad ). Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the said fact. He, however, stated that in the said writ petition, liberty had been granted to the petitioner to file a representation before the Municipal Corporation for allotment of any other space or site, which may be considered in accordance with law and the present writ petition may also be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner in the same terms.

¶19

In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out with the impugned orders. The petition is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to file a representation before the Municipal Corporation for allotment of any other space or site which may be considered in accordance with law.

¶20

February 01, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge

Kanchhi Ram v. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchhi Ram v. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Singh Aujla Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Indra Rani Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward v (2), Ludhiana

Amar Iqbal Singh & Ors. Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

M/S S.S. Company Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurpreet Kaurq Vs Pseb and Ors.

M/S Bipasha Aviations Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.