Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 553 (PNJ)

Chiranji Lal v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation

2003-04-22

N.K.SODHI, N.K.SUD

body2003
Judgment N.K.Sodhi, J. 1. This order will dispose of a bunch of five Civil Writ Petitions 2076, 4317, 4318, 4320 and 4460 of 2003 in which common questions of law and fact arise. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 4460 of 2003. 2. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation) is the owner of the shop in dispute which is situated at the Bus Stand at Bathinda. The shop was given to the petitioner as a license for a period of 11 months with effect from 1.2.1991 and he was required to pay the licence fee of Rs. 1,663/- per month in advance on or before the 5th of each month. A licence deed incorporating the terms as agreed between the parties was executed. On the expiry of the term of the licence did not vacate the premises and continued to remain in its occupation. The Corporation then moved an application under Section 3 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Collector, Bathinda with a prayer that vacant possession of the shop be delivered to it. It was alleged that the period of the licence had expired and since that was not extended, the petitioner was liable to hand over vacant possession of the shop to the Corporation. It was also alleged that the petitioner had misused the premises inasmuch as the same had been given to him as a licensee for the sale of fruit juice but instead he was running it as a cloth shop and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted as he had violated the terms of the licence. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioner who contested the same. It was pleaded that the application had not been filed by a competent person on behalf of the Corporation and that the same was barred by the principle of res judicata. It was also pleaded that the shop in dispute had been leased out to the petitioner who had been paying the rent regularly and, therefore, the application was not maintainable. He denied that the shop was being used for a purpose other than the one for which it had been given to him. 3. It was also pleaded that the shop in dispute had been leased out to the petitioner who had been paying the rent regularly and, therefore, the application was not maintainable. He denied that the shop was being used for a purpose other than the one for which it had been given to him. 3. After recording some evidence of the parties, the Collector came to the conclusion that the application had been filed by a duly authorised person on behalf of the Corporation and that the same was maintainable. As regards the plea of res judicata, the Collector found that the previous order did not pertain to the petitioner and in any case in the earlier proceedings the Corporation had only sought to recover the arrears of licence fee and the issues now raised did not arise. The Collector also found that the term of the licence had long expired and that the petitioner was misusing the premises. Inasmuch as he was running a cloth shop, a purpose other than the one for which the licence had been granted. In view of these findings, the Collector accepted the application and directed the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the Corporation. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of the Commissioner who by his order dated 8.1.2003 dismissed the same. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find no ground to interfere in the exercise of our writ jurisdiction. The authorities below, have concurrently found that the shop in dispute had been given to the petitioner as a licence for a period of 11 months which was long over and since the same had not been extended the petitioner was in an unauthorised occupation of the same. It has also been found that there was change of user inasmuch the petitioner is running the shop as a cloth merchant whereas it was given to him for selling fruit juice. Since the previous orders did not pertain to the petitioner, the plea of res judicata was rightly rejected. It has also been found that there was change of user inasmuch the petitioner is running the shop as a cloth merchant whereas it was given to him for selling fruit juice. Since the previous orders did not pertain to the petitioner, the plea of res judicata was rightly rejected. A perusal of the licence deed executed between the parties clearly envisages that it was a licence granted by the Corporation to the petitioner and not a lease. It is well settled that a licence does not create any estate or interest in the property to which it relates and the moment the period of the licence is over the licensee becomes an unauthorised occupant liable to be evicted in accordance with law. The Corporation is, therefore, justified in moving the application under Section 3 and 5 of the Act seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation. The plea that the shop had been given on lease was not seriously pressed. As already observed, the licence deed executed between the parties is indicative of their intention to crate a licence and not a lease. Since the period of licence has long expired, the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the shop in dispute and is liable to hand over vacant possession of the same to the Corporation. No fault can, thus, be found with the orders passed by the authorities below. 5. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same stand dismissed in limine.