Allowed

State of Haryana v. Ramkaran & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Nov 2014CWP/14785/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court upheld eviction orders passed under the Haryana Public Premises Act against tenants who remained in possession after lease expiry without renewal, setting aside appellate orders that considered humanitarian factors irrelevant to statutory eviction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; orders of appellate authority set aside; Collector eviction orders upheld.

State of Haryana Vs Ramkaran & Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 14785 of 2013

¶3

Date of Decision: 03.11.2014

Haryana State

... Petitioner

Versus

Ramkaran and Another

... Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta.

¶10

Present: Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner.

¶11

None for respondent No.1.

¶12

Rajan Gupta, J.

¶13

This order will dispose of a bunch of 12 writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14785, 14786, 14787, 14788, 14789, 14790, 14791, 14792, 14793, 14940, 14941 & 14942 of 2013 as they are preferred against similar orders passed by the appellate authority on the same date. For brevity, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 14785 of 2013.

¶14

Present petition has been preferred by State of Haryana to impugn order passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar exercising powers of appellate authority under Haryana Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

¶15

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana submits that order passed by the Commissioner suffers from patent error. The authority has ignored from consideration the fact that lease

¶16

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2014.11.04 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No. 14785 of 2013

¶18

¶19

period of respondent/tenant had expired on 31.12.2010. He had not paid lease money thereafter. He was, thus, liable to eviction.

¶20

Prayer has been opposed by the respondent/tenant. According to him, he has been regularly paying the lease money since the premises was leased out to him in the year 2001. Even now, he is prepared to pay the lease amount. Thus, eviction of the tenant is not warranted.

¶21

I have heard counsel for the parties.

¶22

It appears that Zila Sainik Board, Jind intended to lease out certain shops. It entered into an agreement with the respondent/tenant in this respect. Respondent occupied the shop. Lease period expired on 31.12.2010. Thereafter, notice (Annexure P2) was issued by Zila Sainik Board, Jind asking the respondent/tenant to vacate the premises. As he failed to vacate, proceedings were initiated under the Act. Collector came to the conclusion that lessee had no right to remain in possession over the shops after expiry of the lease period. He, thus, directed his eviction. Lessee preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The authority came to the conclusion that department had failed to show that lessee had violated any of the terms & conditions of the agreement. In the eventuality, any rent was due, lessee would deposit the same with the Zila Sainik Board within one month of the order. It, thus, allowed the appeal preferred by the lessee.

¶23

I am of the considered view that order passed by the appellate authority suffers from patent illegality. It has taken into consideration factors such as loss of livelihood of the occupants of a public premises.

¶24

Civil Writ Petition No. 14785 of 2013

¶25

¶26

Such issues cannot weigh with the authority while exercising its statutory appellate powers. Admittedly, lease period in respect of the premises has already expired. The department never extended the lease period. Collector, thus, rightly directed eviction of respondent/tenant from the demised premises. Appellate Authority erred in setting aside order passed by the Collector, on completely untenable grounds.

¶27

In judgment reported as Ajaib Singh and Another v. The Gram Panchayat of Village Khanpur and Others 2002(3) RCR (Civil) 293 , it was held as under:-

¶28

“5. Irrespective of the above, it is clear that the petitioners had been granted lease for a limited period of 20 years. The lease had expired on January 17, 1988. Thereafter, the respondent-Panchayat had initiated proceedings for their eviction. The period of lease having expired, the petitioners had no right to remain in possession of the land. They were bound to vacate it.

¶29

6. Mr. Walia contends that the proceedings were wrongly initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1973. There is no basis for such a contention. No such plea is shown to have been raised in reply to the petition which had been filed in the year 1993. The petitioners cannot be allowed to make out an entirely new case at this stage. The petition is wholly frivolous and cannot be entertained.”

¶30

Facts of this case are similar. Admittedly, lease period expired on 31.12.2010 and lease was never extended. Thus, Zila Sainik Board

¶31

Civil Writ Petition No. 14785 of 2013

¶32

¶33

sought eviction of the respondent/tenant from the demised premises under the Act.

¶34

In another case reported as Tej Kaur v. Union of India 2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 129 , this Court held that in case of non-renewal of lease, petitioners would be considered unauthorized occupants of the premises, thus, liable to be evicted.

¶35

In another case reported as Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and others v. Mohan Krishan Abrol and another 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 489 , apex court held that on expiry of lease period and non-renewal thereof, lessees would be considered unauthorized occupants of the premises (see para 10).

¶36

In view of above, all the petitions are allowed. Orders passed by the appellate authority are set aside and those passed by the Collector are upheld.

¶37

(Rajan Gupta) Judge

¶38

November 03, 2014 “DK”

¶39

Refer to Reporter: Yes

State of Haryana v. Ramkaran & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Ramkaran & Anr.

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

Mangna Bai Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sarwan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Hira Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue Pb & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Suraj Mal & Anr.

State of Haryana Vs Ashok Kumar & Anr.

State of Haryana Vs Subhash Chander & Anr.