Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1754 (PNJ)

Prit Pal Singh v. Municipal Corporation

2008-10-17

JASWANT SINGH, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2008
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J.:-The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.6.2006, passed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, whereby he has been ordered to be evicted from the shop in question, owned by respondent No.1, the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent Corporation’), under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), as well as the order dated 6.9.2008, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 5.7.2004, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, whereby tenancy of the shop in question was cancelled due to non-payment of the arrears of rent and commission of breach of terms and conditions of the lease agreement. 2. In this case, the petitioner had taken the shop in question on lease/rent from Gram Panchayat Bedhari for a period of 3 years with effect from 1.12.1993 to 30.11.1996 at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,750/-, in an open auction. After execution of the lease agreement, the petitioner did not pay any rent. In the year 1994, the area of village Badhari was merged in the area of the respondent Corporation and all assets and liabilities of the Gram Panchayat were transferred to the respondent Corporation. Subsequently, when the petitioner did not pay the rent, he was served with various notices from 1998 to 2004 for depositing the outstanding rent. He was also called for personal hearing, but despite this, he failed to pay the outstanding rent, which came to Rs.7,71,425/- upto 30.6.204. Thereupon, the Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to make payment of rent, cancelled the tenancy of the shop in question on the ground of non-payment of rent, vide his order dated 5.7.2004. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal and revision, which were also dismissed. Before the Appellate as well as Revisional authority, the petitioner did not avail the offer of making payment of the outstanding rent. 3. After cancellation of the tenancy, the respondent Corporation filed application against the petitioner for his eviction under the provisions of the Act, being an unauthorised occupant. The Estate Officer, Chandigarh, after providing opportunity to the petitioner, passed the impugned order of eviction against the petitioner on 21.6.2006. 3. After cancellation of the tenancy, the respondent Corporation filed application against the petitioner for his eviction under the provisions of the Act, being an unauthorised occupant. The Estate Officer, Chandigarh, after providing opportunity to the petitioner, passed the impugned order of eviction against the petitioner on 21.6.2006. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the District Judge, Chandigarh, which has been dismissed. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities under the Act, without properly considering the case of the petitioner, have passed the order of eviction in a discriminatory manner. He submits that the Gram Panchayat, Village Bedhari, immediately after the auction, assured the petitioner that rent of the shop in question will be reduced to Rs. 1,500/- per month, till the providing of electricity to the petitioner, but the rent was not reduced. For that reason, the rent was not paid. Learned counsel submits that the respondent Corporation, to whom the area of Village Bedhari has been transferred, is bound by the assurance given to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat of Village Bedhari, but the respondent Corporation, without reducing the rent, had illegally insisted for payment of rent as per the lease agreement. Learned counsel further submits that initially, the proceedings regarding cancellation of the tenancy were started against various defaulting tenants, but against some of the tenants, the proceedings were dropped and their tenancy was regularised under a policy decision taken by the respondent Corporation vide resolution dated 28.11.2003. Therefore, the respondent Corporation has acted discriminatory, while cancelling the tenancy of the petitioner and getting him evicted under the provisions of the Act. 5. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, we do not find any merit in this petition. 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not paid any rent from the day of taking over possession of the shop in question by him. Till date, he is in arrears of rent for more than 14 years. He has not paid any rent till date on one pretext or the other. On September 23, 2008, this Court provided opportunity to the petitioner to clear the outstanding rent and his counsel sought time to bring draft of Rs. Till date, he is in arrears of rent for more than 14 years. He has not paid any rent till date on one pretext or the other. On September 23, 2008, this Court provided opportunity to the petitioner to clear the outstanding rent and his counsel sought time to bring draft of Rs. 5 lacs towards the rent due to the respondent Corporation, but today, counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is not inclined to clear the outstanding rent. From the various orders, annexed with the petition, it appears that earlier also, the petitioner was afforded various opportunities to clear the outstanding dues, but he did not avail any opportunity and pay any rent. The respondent Corporation, vide its resolution dated 28.11.2003, had taken the decision that if the tenants agree to pay the revised rent and enter into the revised terms and conditions and clear the arrears of rent, then their tenancy should be renewed. Some of the tenants have accepted the offer of the respondent Corporation and their tenancy has been renewed on the revised terms and conditions. The petitioner did not avail that opportunity. From the impugned orders, it appears that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to defend his eviction and after considering his submissions, the impugned orders have been passed. Regarding the contention that the Gram Panchayat, Village Bedhari assured the petitioner to reduce the rate of rent of the shop in question to Rs. 1,500/- per month, the petitioner has not placed on record any material, except his oral assertion. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Dismissed. —————————