Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1531 (PNJ)

Punjab National Bank v. State Of Haryana

2003-11-10

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, VINEY MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner-Bank") has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated July 6, 1999 passed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, directing the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- per month and the order dated April 12, 2002 passed any the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh-respondent No. 2 whereby the order of respondent No. 3 has been modified and the petitioner-Bank has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- to HUDA and the letter dated May 14, 2002 passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula-respondent No. 4 raising a demand of Rs. 2,65,000/-. 2. The petitioner-Bank had taken the premises in dispute from respondent No. 5 N.K. Sharma who was the landlord of the aforesaid house. A lease-deed was executed and was duly registered. Subsequently, the lease period was extended. A dispute arose between tenant/petitioner-Bank and landlord-respondents No. 5 with regard to the eviction and the matter was taken to the Civil Court by the landlord-respondents No. 5. 3. Since the aforesaid plot was allotted by HUDA to respondents No. 5 to be utilised as residential premises alone, therefore, the Estate Officer-respondent No. 4 served a notice of resumption to respondent No. 5 under the provision of section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter called the "Act"). Subsequently an order of resumption came to be passed by respondent No. 4 on May 26, 1977 by the Estate Officer. A copy of the aforesaid resumption order has been appended as Annexure P1 with the present petition. 4. The petitioner-Bank filed an appeal before respondent No. 3 against the aforesaid resumption order. Subsequently another appeal was filed by N.K. Sharma-respondent No. 5 also, although after the expiry of limitation. Both the appeals were heard together by respondent No. 3. Vide order dated July, 6, 1999, the appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank was dismissed whereas in the appeal filed by the landlord, it was directed that the petitioner-Bank shall vacate the possession and stop the misuse of the premises in dispute on or before November 30,1999. Both the appeals were heard together by respondent No. 3. Vide order dated July, 6, 1999, the appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank was dismissed whereas in the appeal filed by the landlord, it was directed that the petitioner-Bank shall vacate the possession and stop the misuse of the premises in dispute on or before November 30,1999. Admittedly the appellant authority directed that the petitioner-Bank would pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month with effect from July 1, 1996 till November 30, 1999 and out of the aforesaid amount, half of the amount shall be credited to the account of HUDA being the paramount owner and the remaining half shall be credited to the account of the allottee N.K. Sharma. A copy of the order dated July 6, 1999 passed by the Administrator, HUDA Panchkula exercising the powers of appellate authority, has been appended as Annexure P4 with the present petition. 5. The petitioner-Bank felt aggrieved against the order Annexure P4 and filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana. The aforesaid revision petition has been decided by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary-respondent No. 2 vide his order dated April 12, 2002. The revisional authority-respondent No. 2 modified the order passed by the Administrator-respondent No. 3 and it was directed that the bank would pay Rs. 5000/- per month to HUDA with effect from July 1, 1996 i.e. when the premises were occupied by the petitioner-Bank. It was further directed that the landlord would also deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as penalty to HUDA for negligence in giving the residential house on rent for running commercial activities. A copy of the order dated April 12, 2002 has been appended as Annexure P6 with the petition. In pursuance to the direction Annexure P6, the Estate Officer, HUDA issued a notice dated May 14, 2002 directing the petitioner-Bank to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- as compensation for occupying the premises for commercial use. A copy of the aforesaid notice has been appended as Annexure P7 with the petition. 6. At this, stage, it may be relevant to notice here that in the civil suit filed by land-lord-N.K. Sharma against the petitioner-Bank an order of ejectment was passed by the civil court on January 18, 2000. A copy of the aforesaid notice has been appended as Annexure P7 with the petition. 6. At this, stage, it may be relevant to notice here that in the civil suit filed by land-lord-N.K. Sharma against the petitioner-Bank an order of ejectment was passed by the civil court on January 18, 2000. Beside ordering the ejectment of the petitioner-Bank from the premises in dispute, a decree for recovery of amount being arrears of rent and also being the mesne profit from July 1, 1996 was passed against the petitioner-Bank (defendant in suit). A copy of the judgment dated January 18, 2000 has been appended as Annexure P8 with the petitioner. The petitioner-Bank has averred that in pursuance to the direction issued by the HUDA authorities as well as because of the judgment of the civil court, the petitioner-Bank vacated the premises in dispute on November 16, 2000. 7. Now the petitioner-Bank has filed the present petition challenging the orders Annexure P4/P6 and the notice of recovery Annexure P7. The challenge has been made by the petitioner-Bank on the ground that the aforesaid direction has been issued by the respondents absolutely without any authority of law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Upon a notice of the present petition, the respondents have put in appearance. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and 4. The claim of the petitioner has been contested. The respondents have averred that since the petitioner-Bank was misusing the premises in question against the allotment letter and also against the provisions of the HUDA Act, Rules and regulations, therefore, the HUDA authorities were well within their rights to impose the aforesaid charges upon the petitioner-Bank. 9. We have heard Shri H.R. Bansal, Advocate the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank, Shri R.D. Sharma, the learned Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State and Shri Aman Chaudhary, Advocate the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4. Sh. N.K. Sharma-respondents No. 5, the landlord, has appeared in person. 10. Shri H.R. Bansal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the orders Annexures P4 and P6 op the ground that there was absolutely no jurisdiction with respondents No. 2 and 3 to pass an order directing the petitioner-Bank to pay a compensation of Rs. Sh. N.K. Sharma-respondents No. 5, the landlord, has appeared in person. 10. Shri H.R. Bansal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the orders Annexures P4 and P6 op the ground that there was absolutely no jurisdiction with respondents No. 2 and 3 to pass an order directing the petitioner-Bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- per month which was modified by respondent No. 3 to a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month. It has further been argued by Shri Bansal that the petitioner-Bank had filed an appeal against the order of resumption before respondent No. 3 could have either accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank and set aside the order of resumption or could have dismissed the same. In any case, there was no jurisdiction with respondent No. 3 to order the compensation from the petitioner-Bank. It has been argued that the petitioner-Bank was under no obligation to pay any amount to HUDA authorities. Shri Bansal has also argued that the ejectment of the petitioner-Bank has been ordered by the civil court vide judgment dated January 18, 2000. While ordering the ejectment a decree for recovery of mesne profit has been passed. Thus, according to Sh. Bansal, the petitioner-Bank could only be asked to pay mesne profits to the landlord-respondent No. 5 and to nobody else. 11. On the other hand, Shri Aman Chaudhary, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 has argued that since the premises in question were allotted for residential purposes by the HUDA and had been used for commercial purposes by the petitioner-Bank, therefore, the order of imposition of compensation upon the petitioner-Bank was absolutely legal and valid. Reliance has also been placed by Shri Aman Chaudhary upon a judgment rendered by this court in RSA No. 1244 of 1999 decided on May 24, 1999. According to Shri Chaudhary, this court had directed a similar bank in the aforesaid case also to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties, in our considered view the writ petition deserves to succeed. 13. According to Shri Chaudhary, this court had directed a similar bank in the aforesaid case also to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties, in our considered view the writ petition deserves to succeed. 13. From the perusal of orders Annexures P4 and P6, we find that respondents No. 3 and 2, respectively, have completely misconstrued the facts and circumstances of the present controversy and have also completely ignored the provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case. The appeal had been filed by the petitioner-Bank challenging the resumption order. The appellate authority of course was well within its rights to accept the appeal and set aside the resumption order or reject the appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank and maintain the resumption order. In either of the situations, there was absolutely no jurisdiction with the appellate authority to order the imposition of compensation on the petitioner-Bank and that too from July 1,1996 till November 30, 1999 at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month. It is not understandable as to how and in what circumstances, the petitioner-Bank was directed to pay the compensation. 14. The petitioner-Bank had entered the premises in dispute as a tenant on a valid lease deed executed by respondent No. 5 the landlord. If the landlord had leased out the premises in dispute to the petitioner-Bank then the petitioner-Bank itself could not be held to be liable to pay any compensation for use and occupation to the HUDA authorities. There was absolutely no privity of contract between the parties. Additionally it may be noticed that the petitioner-Bank had been directed to pay mesne profits by the civil court vide judgment Annexure P18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Bank had vacated the premises in dispute on November 15, 2000. 15. At this stage, we may also notice the judgment in RSA No. 1244 of 1999 on which reliance has been placed both the respondents No. 2 and 3 while passing the impugned orders. The aforesaid judgment was rendered by this Court in a regular second appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank in that case in a dispute which pertained to eviction of the tenant-Bank and its landlord. The aforesaid judgment was rendered by this Court in a regular second appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank in that case in a dispute which pertained to eviction of the tenant-Bank and its landlord. The controversy before the High Court was primarily of eviction of the tenant from the premises on the asking of the landlord. It was in those circumstances, the period of six months had been granted to the petitioner-Bank (in that appeal) to vacate the premises on the condition of payment of Rs. 35,000/- per month for use and occupation. The said case pertained to landlord and tenant relationship alone. It is not understandable as to how the said case is of any relevance to the facts of the present case. Simply because in the aforesaid case the appellant-Bank (State Bank of India in that case) was directed to pay mesne profits for use and occupation is no ground to burden the present petitioner-Bank (Punjab National Bank) with an amount of compensation as assessed vide orders Annexures P4 and P6. Under these circumstances, we find that neither the orders Annexures P4 and P6 can be supported on the facts and circumstances of the case nor they can derive any support from the provisions of the law. 16. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the orders Annexures P4 and P6 and the notice Annexure P7 are quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.