Dismissed¶18

Sushil Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner(a) Patiala Divn

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2026CWP/7430/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ejectment; unauthorized occupation; non-payment of rent; Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973 Sections 5 & 7; Municipal Council Malerkotla; sub-letting; rent arrears Rs. 16,112.60; appellate authority dismissal; no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction; CWP No.7431 of 2002 Sushil Kumar v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala Division; CWP No.4511 of 2001 Hari Miter v. State of Punjab; Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala; Punjab & Haryana High Court.

What did the court decide?

The controversy involved in the present writ petition already stands decided in CWP No.7431 of 2002, titled 'Sushil Kumar vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division & others', decided on 17.12.2024. ¶11

Sushil Kumar Vs Addl. Commissioner(a) Patiala Divn — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Sr. No.: 215 Civil Writ Petition No.7430 of 2002 Date of Decision: July 22, 2026

Sushil Kumar

..... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala & others

¶6

..... RESPONDENT(S)

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶8

PRESENT : - Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, with Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶9

Mr. H.K. Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶10

PANKAJ JAIN, J (Oral)

¶11

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that controversy involved in the present writ petition already stands decided in CWP No.7431 of 2002, titled ‘Sushil Kumar vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division & others’, decided on 17.12.2024, wherein this Court observed as under:-

¶12

“Respondent no. 3 filed an application under Section 5 & 7 of the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of petitioner from the premises in question, he being in illegal occupation thereof. On 18.03.1997, respondent no. 2 directed ejectment of petitioner from the plot in question and also to recover ₹16112.60/- as arrears of rent on account of unauthorized occupation of same w.e.f. 01.04.1992 to 31.01.1995. Petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed on 26.08.1999. Aggrieved, instant petition has been filed.

¶13

I find no infirmity with the orders. It is evident that plot in dispute was leased out by Municipal Council, Malerkotla to Maqsood Ali (respondent no.4 herein). He had sub-let the same in favour of petitioner. Municipal Council, Malerkotla initiated proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from the plot in question on the ground of unauthorized occupation and non payment of rent from 01.04.1992 to 31.01.1995. Authorities below after hearing the parties and perusing

¶14

AVIN KUMAR 2026.07.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CWP No.7430 of 2002 [2]

¶16

evidence on record directed ejectment of petitioner from the plot in question being unauthorized occupant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any infirmity with the orders passed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and judgment dated 13.03.2002 of this court rendered in CWP No. 4511 of 2001 titled as Hari Miter & ors. Vs. The State of Punjab & ors. , there is no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

¶17

Dismissed.”

¶18

2. Dismissed in the aforesaid terms.

¶19

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE July 22, 2026 avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No Whether Reportable: Yes/ No

¶20

AVIN KUMAR 2026.07.23 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sushil Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner(a) Patiala Divn

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner(a) Patiala Divn

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashpal Singh Vs the Superintending Engineer and Others

Surjeet Singh Vs Divisional Canal Officer Canal Sub Division Abohar and Others

Rajesh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajeev Chopra Vs State of U T Chandigarh and Others

Bishan Singh Vs the Superintending Canal Officer,,Ferozepur

Dharam Raj Vs the Financial Commissioner, Haryana