Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 101 (HP)

AMARDASS v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-05-09

A.K.GOEL

body2003
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral) - Heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the record produced by Mr. Negi, learned Assistant Advocate General. 2. Facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had taken a shop in Bachat Bhawan at Una from respondent No.2. This shop was allotted on auction undertaken by and on behalf of respondent No.2. 3. Petitioner claims to have paid the agreed rent for about two yeas and thereafter he was involved in frivolous litigation during the years 1991-92. In the shop in question, petitioner was carrying on the business of arms and ammunitions. As such, licence of his business was not renewed in time. This resulted in closure of the shop in question. Per him, he was involved in frivolous cases by the Punjab Police. He approached this Court as well as the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. He claims to have been provided security under the orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court when Inspector General of the Central Police Reserve Force was directed to do the needful at Garhshankar to him as well as his family in the State of Punjab. 4. In the aforesaid background, petitioner alleges that he received a notice in January, 1995 from respondent No. 2. It was mentioned in this notice that he has not paid rent so far of the shop in question from November, 1990 to January, 1995, and in case needful was not done within 15 days, action would be taken for recovery of the amount of rent. Copy of this notice has been fi1 3 as Annexure P-1 with this writ petition. This was relied to by the petitioner amongst other things. He stated for want of no objection and being involved in frivolous cases by Punjab Police, nothing could be done by him (petitioner). At the same time, he asked respondent No. 2 for carrying on repairs to the shop in question, but without any avail. Again, a notice vide Annexure P-2 was issued to the petitioner, whereby he was called upon to deposit the amount of rent from November, 1990 to 11.7.1995 amounting to Rs. 29,029/- by 31.8.1995, failing which goods as detailed in the inventory prepared would be put to auction and after deducting due and payable amount, rest will be deposited in the Treasury. 29,029/- by 31.8.1995, failing which goods as detailed in the inventory prepared would be put to auction and after deducting due and payable amount, rest will be deposited in the Treasury. It was further mentioned in this notice that after 31.8.1995, no objection will be entertained. This compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by way of present writ petition. 5. Respondents were put to notice. Mr. Negi has also produced the original file wherein action for eviction of the petitioner was taken by the then incumbent of the office of respondent No. 2. A perusal of the file shows that possession of the premises in question was taken over under the authority of respondent No. 2 on 12.7.1995. Mr. Negi made an attempt to justify his clients action in taking possession on the same date. When specifically asked as to under what authority of law muchless procedure, action was taken, Mr. Negi was not in a position to support the same. 6. Prima facie premises appears to be the Public Premises within the meaning of H.P. Public Premises? (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. In case, petitioner had either failed to pay the rent or to have handed over vacant possession of the premises in question, there was nothing that prevented respondent No. 2 to have proceeded in the matter by having recourse to law either under the Act of 1971 (supra), or any other provision of law. From the record, nothing can be spelt out so as to justify the taking over of the possession on 12.7.1995 by respondent No. 2. 7. So long as rule of law prevails and writ of the Constitution runs, action of respondent. No. 2 by no stretch of imagination can be supported in the facts had circumstances of this case. Therefore, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion, on the basis of the records produced by Mr. Negi, that there is no legal sanction muchless authority for any of the respondents to have taken possession of the shop in question on 12.7.1995. Such action cannot be upheld in any situation. It is also by now well settled that even a trespasser has to be dispossessed in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a trespasser and this is not the case set up by the respondents in their reply. Such action cannot be upheld in any situation. It is also by now well settled that even a trespasser has to be dispossessed in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a trespasser and this is not the case set up by the respondents in their reply. In case plea of respondents is accepted, at best petitioner was in arrears of rent and nothing more. This is an additional ground not to uphold the action of respondent No. 2 in taking possession on 12.7.1995. 8. No other point is urged. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is ordered accordingly. Consequently, respondent No. 2 is directed to forthwith hand over the possession of the premises in question to the petitioner along with goods as per inventory prepared at the time of taking possession on 12.7.1995, on production of certified copy of this judgment. So far plea that petitioner may be called upon to pay the arrears of rent, is concerned, in case those are actually due and payable and if in such a situation petitioner fails to pay the amount within a reasonable time, respondents will be free to take such recourse as is permissible under law. Respondents will pay to the petitioner costs of this writ petition, quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. 10. Urgent copy of this judgment will be supplied to learned Counsel for the parties. .