Dismissed

Ram Dev Goel v. Hy Tourism Corp and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Dec 2014CWP/9104/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging eviction orders under the Public Premises Act were dismissed. The Court held that notices terminating licenses for non-payment of enhanced rent were valid and possession had become unlawful upon expiry of the license period.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the orders of the authorities constituted under the Public Premises Act directing eviction.

Ram Dev Goel Vs Hy Tourism Corp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.9104 of 2002

¶3

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

¶4

CWP No.9104 of 2002 Date of Decision.18.12.2014

Sh. Ram Dev Goel

.......Petitioner

Versus

Haryana Tourism Corporation through its Managing Director and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CWP Nos.9105 to 9110, 9137, 9140, 9141, 9181, 9184 and 9185 of 2002

¶11

Present: Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Roopak Bansal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶13

Mr. C.S. Singh, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶15

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

-.-

¶19

K. KANNAN J.

¶20

This batch of writ petitions challenge the correctness of the orders passed by authorities constituted under the Public Premises Act. The eviction was sought on the ground that the respective acts of possession of the petitioners have become unauthorized on the noncompliance of the demand contained in their notices issued to them requiring them to vacate the premises on expiry of the licence granted to them to occupy the premises belonging to the Tourism Corporation.

¶21

The notices issued on 4.6.1997 and other dates in the same month to the various tenants set out the fact that the shops which were

¶22

PANKAJ KUMAR 2014.12.19 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CWP No.9104 of 2002

¶24

-2-

¶25

13 in number had been granted licence for carrying on business of either the petitioners or their predecessors and they were not willing to pay the higher rent which were demanded on the basis that the market values had increased. The petitioners protested and would make a case that they had not been in arrears of rent and the demand of higher rate was not justified. There was an attempt to prove before the Estate Officer that there had been no arrears at all and there was no justifiable ground to direct eviction.

¶26

The authorities upheld the plea of the Tourism Corporation and directed eviction finding that notices had been issued in accordance with law and their continuance in possession had not been under any contract written or implied that allowed for its subsistence. Consequently, the orders of eviction had been passed.

¶27

I find from the file that against the interim orders of the High Court that allowed for protection of the possessions of various occupants, there had been civil appeals before the Supreme Court in C.A. Nos.6095 to 6101 of 2002 and the Supreme Court had allowed for their continuance in possession subject to condition that the entire arrears of rent had been paid and that each of the petitioners shall pay ` 3,000/- per month, if not already deposited within a stipulated period.

¶28

The Supreme Court had in its order dated 23.09.2002 directed the disposal of the case within a period of six months and that any amount that had been paid would be properly adjusted.

¶29

The case had not been disposed of within the time as stipulated for the reasons which are not germane but the fact remains

¶30

that the petitioners have enjoyed all the benefits of the order by their PANKAJ KUMAR 2014.12.19 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

CWP No.9104 of 2002

¶32

-3-

¶33

continuance at the modified rates of rent which were directed to be paid.

¶34

The only point that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the Corporation had a right to secure vacant possession when their own demand for enhancing the rent was not complied with and when they issued notices terminating the licence period and calling upon them to surrender possession immediately. I have examined all the notices and I find that amongst the petitioners, the person in possession of Shop no.1, shop No.2 and shop No.3 are actually persons who claim under their predecessors in whose favour the licences had been originally granted and who had also expired. Their own continuance in possession has not come through any written instrument. The person in possession of Shop No.4 is reported to have been a direct licencee and the notice was being given to terminate the licence on 4.6.1997. In respect of shop No.5, their contention is that the licencee Lajpat Rai had sublet the premises to Om Parkash without any written consent and the license was being revoked for such a reason. In respect of shop No.6, the contention is that the licencee had opened an office of the Gram Panchayat, Jindran, Rohtak which was against the licence terms. In respect of shop No.6-A, the licencee was reported to have sublet the premises to one Harish Sehgal. In shop Nos.7, 8, 9, 11 and 12, notices had been issued terminating the licences while for shop No.10, the property was reported to have been sublet to one Keshar Dass without concurrence of the Tourism Corporation.

¶35

It is seen, therefore, that in all the cases, notices had been

¶36

issued which is required under the law. If the action for eviction itself PANKAJ KUMAR 2014.12.19 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶37

CWP No.9104 of 2002

¶38

-4-

¶39

has been taken after notice before an authority constituted under the Public Premises Act then there could be no further enquiry that the grounds mentioned are not true. Indeed, there requires no law for eviction except the fact that the possession had become unlawful and the original period which had been granted under licence had expired. In Jiwan Dass Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (1994) Supp 3

¶40

SCC 694 , the Supreme Court held that eviction of unauthorized occupants after notice under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises Act after terminating tenancy without any reason does not involve any arbitrary exercise of power to be found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even a doctrine of livelihood can not be extended to commercial operations. The issuance of notice itself is a manner of terminating such a licence and the actions for eviction more than 7 days after notices are themselves sufficient compliance of Section 4 of the Public Premises Act. The contention taken in all the writ petitions that they had been in possession of property for more than 25 years or that they were all always willing to pay the higher rent cannot be accepted as tenable. The orders already passed by the authorities would require no intervention and all the writ petitions are dismissed, affirming thereby the decisions already rendered by the authorities.

¶41

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶42

December 18, 2014 Pankaj*

¶43

PANKAJ KUMAR 2014.12.19 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Ram Dev Goel v. Hy Tourism Corp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dev Goel v. Hy Tourism Corp and Ors.

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

Pooja Vs Jai Chand and Ors.

Lalita Vs Jai Chand and Ors.

Sunita Vs Jai Chand and Ors.

Rajpat Rai Vs Haryana Tourism Corporation

Naveen Vs Haryana Toursim Corporation

Ram Bharosa Goel Vs Haryana Tourism Corpn.L