Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1189 (PNJ)

Ram Prakash v. State Of Punjab

2001-10-23

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA

body2001
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the orders dated July 13, 1994, December 2, 1998 and December 18. 2000, passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Ludhiana; the Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, respectively. By the said orders, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the shop in dispute. Copies of these orders have been produced as Annexures P3, P5 and P7 with the writ petition. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in the year 1976 the petitioner was given the shop in dispute on lease on a monthly licence-fee of Rs. 336/-. The licence was extended for a period of five years on June 6, 1981. This period expired in June 1986. As per terms and conditions of the licence, the petitioner was to hand over the vacant possession of the shop on the expiry of the said period. After the expiry of the lease agreement, the licence with regard to the shop in dispute was not renewed and, thus, the petitioner had been occupying the shop unauthorisedly since then. 3. The Zila Parishad, Ludhiana, filed an application under Section 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, for the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute. Written statement was filed and after considering the entire matter, the District Development & Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Ludhiana, ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute vide order dated July 13, 1994. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. It was dismissed vide order dated December 2, 1998. Thereafter the review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, vide order dated December 18, 2000. 4. Mr. J.R. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner was a tenant and not licensee and, therefore, there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. As such, the possession of the petitioner on the shop in question cannot be termed as unauthorised. He has further argued that the question of violation of any term and condition of the lease deed does not arise because the petitioner was a tenant. As such, the possession of the petitioner on the shop in question cannot be termed as unauthorised. He has further argued that the question of violation of any term and condition of the lease deed does not arise because the petitioner was a tenant. It was further argued that the order Annexure P7, by which the review application was dismissed, was a non-speaking order, Lastly. he has argued that the shop in dispute was not sublet as alleged by the Zila Parishad. 5. The Zila Parishad, respondent No. 4, has filed its reply and has controverted the allegations of the petitioner. It has been stated that the lease-deed was duly signed between the petitioners and the Zila Parishad, according to which the lease was for a period of five years and on the expiry of the same, the licensee was to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute. It is further stated by the respondents that no arguments were advanced before the reviewing authority and as such, the review petition was rightly dismissed. The said respondent has also stated that the shop in dispute was sublet in favour of respondent No. 5 and, as subletting was not permissible, therefore, the petitioner was liable to be evicted from the premises in question. 6. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. As per the terms and conditions of the lease-deed, the petitioner was either to have the licence period extended beyond the period of 5 years or to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute after the expiry of the said period. In the present case, the licence of the petitioner was not extended after June 1986 and, therefore, the petitioner was unauthorisedly occupying the public premises, viz. the shop. The petitioner was bound by the terms and conditions of the lease-deed and the authorities have rightly ordered his ejectment. 7. As far as the question of subletting is concerned, the Collector after perusing the evidence on record, found that after expiry of the lease period the petitioner did not get the lease-deed renewed nor did he hand over the vacant possession to the Zila Parishad. Instead, the petitioner sublet the shop in favour of Ganesh Dass, who has been in its unauthorised possession since then. Instead, the petitioner sublet the shop in favour of Ganesh Dass, who has been in its unauthorised possession since then. Therefore, the petitioner had violated the terms of the agreement as he had sublet the premises and has rightly been ordered to be evicted. 8. The last submission of the petitioner also is devoid of any merit. No arguments were advanced before the Reviewing Authority and the review application was rightly dismissed. 9. In view of the above, we are of the view that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and had also sublet the shop in dispute. Therefore, he has rightly been ordered to be evicted. 10. Consequently, the petition is devoid of any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.