Partly allowed

Kewaljit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2013CWP/1019/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition in part, quashing eviction proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. It ordered re-allotment of the shop subject to payment of additional dues based on the latest auction price in quarterly installments, with eviction enforceable upon default.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; eviction proceedings quashed; shop re-allotted conditionally pending payment of revised dues in three quarterly installments with eviction enforceable on default.

Kewaljit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 1019 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 1019 of 2013

¶5

Date of decision: 28.05.2013

Kewaljit Singh

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. O.S. Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

¶14

Mr. T.V.S. Lehal, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5.

¶15

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶16

CM No. 5537 of 2013

¶17

Application is allowed as prayed for.

¶18

Written Statement filed by respondents No. 4 and 5 is taken

¶19

on record.

¶20

CWP No. 1019 of 2013

¶21

Reply by respondent No. 2 filed in Court, is taken on record. The petitioner impugns the eviction order dated 4.4.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Collector under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short 'the 1973 Act'). The above-stated order has been passed in respect of shop No. 8

¶22

CWP No. 1019 of 2013 -2-

¶23

situated at Din Dayal Upadhaya Market, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar Road, Batala. The shop was allotted to the petitioner in an open auction held in the year 2002 but the petitioner having failed to deposit the due installments towards the allotment price, it was resumed on 20.9.2005.

¶24

The petitioner did challenge the order of resumption but it attained finality as he failed to deposit the due amount despite time given by this Court in the earlier litigation. Since he refused to vacate the shop, the Improvement Trust, Batala initiated eviction proceedings under the 1973 Act, culminating into passing of the impugned order.

¶25

Since the petitioner took a specific plea that the subject shop is the only source of his livelihood and he was ready and willing to deposit the outstanding dues along with interest etc., we intervened in the matter on equitable considerations despite being satisfied that the petitioner had no right to retain the possession.

¶26

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the petitioner has deposited the due amount as per the allotment price of 2002 and upon deposit thereof, the locks were opened and his possession has been restored.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Improvement Trust, however, submits that in March, 2013 another shop of similar size and in the same market was put to public auction and has been sold at a price of 42,60,000/-. The petitioner on the other hand has paid a sum of 33 lacs only.

¶28

Since the resumption order had already attained finality and no interference at this stage is warranted, we are of the view that in the

¶29

CWP No. 1019 of 2013 -3-

¶30

interest of justice and equity the allotment of the subject shop can be restored in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition that no loss is caused to the public institution, namely, the Improvement Trust, Batala.

¶31

For the reasons afore-stated, we allow the writ petition in part and quash the eviction proceedings subject to the following directions:-

¶32

(i) The Improvement Trust Batala shall inform the petitioner the balance amount as per revised allotment price, to be determined on the basis of the last auction held for a shop of similar size and in the same market.

¶33

(ii) The petitioner shall pay the additional amount in three quarterly installments, the first installment to commence after a period of six months from the date of communication of the additional price.

¶34

(iii) On deposit of the balance revised allotment price, the booth site shall be re-allotted to the petitioner, who shall then be entitled to seek execution of the Conveyance Deed etc.

¶35

(iv) However, in the event of default, the respondent-Trust shall be entitled to seek the petitioner's eviction on the basis of the previous order of resumption.

¶36

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE

¶37

May 28, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE

Kewaljit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kewaljit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Jatinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rishi Raj and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dharambir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Devender and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Vinay Khanna Vs State of Punjab & Anr.