Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 758 (PNJ)

Union of India v. Municipal Council, Muktsar

2012-05-28

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, T.P.S.MANN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: - The Union of India and others have filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 29.2.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 14031 of 2007) filed by the appellants, challenging the eviction orders dated 5.9.2006 (Annexure P-1) and 17.5.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the prescribed authority and the Appellate Authority, respectively, under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been dismissed with costs quantified as Rs.50,000/- to be paid to respondent No.1-Municipal Council. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and going through the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the authorities under the Act and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. 3. Undisputedly, in this case, the appellants had taken the premises in question on lease from the Municipal Committee, Muktsar (now Municipal Council, Muktsar) – respondent No.1 in the year 1937, at the rate of Rs.25/- per month, for running the post office. The lease was extended from time to time, but after the year 1953, because of the dilapidated condition of the building, which could result in some human loss in case of its fall, the lease was not extended by the respondent – Municipal Council. Thereafter, a notice to vacate the premises in question was given by the respondent – Municipal Council, and ultimately, eviction proceedings under the provisions of the Act were initiated against the appellants, as their possession after the expiry of the lease period was totally unauthorised. The authorities under the Act passed the eviction order, which was challenged by the appellants in the writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Surprisingly, before the learned Single Judge, a very strange stand was taken by the appellants. They denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and pleaded that the respondent – Municipal Council is not the owner of the premises in question. The learned Single Judge rejected the plea while observing that the stand taken by the appellants was not bonafide at all. They denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and pleaded that the respondent – Municipal Council is not the owner of the premises in question. The learned Single Judge rejected the plea while observing that the stand taken by the appellants was not bonafide at all. During the pendency of the proceedings, at one point of time, the respondent – Municipal Council had offered two newly constructed shops for housing the post office at reasonable rent to be agreed between the parties, but the said offer was also not accepted. 5. During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed that the building, in which the post office is running, is an old building and in dilapidated condition. In our opinion, the running of a public office, like the post office, in such a building is neither safe nor in public interest. It may result into any mis-happening at any time. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that at present, due to the financial crunch, the Union of India is not in a position to construct the new building for housing the post office, cannot be accepted. On the one hand, the appellants are not accepting the reasonable offer given by the respondent – Municipal Council and on the other hand, they are fighting the litigation by taking unreasonable and totally illegal stand. The denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the Union of India is totally unwarranted. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.50,000/-, particularly keeping in view the fact that the appellants have taken the aforesaid unreasonable stand. 6. Before passing the eviction order, not only the procedure prescribed under the Act was followed, but due opportunity was given to the appellants to defend the eviction proceedings. Now, at this stage, when the ejectment order has already been passed, the contention of the appellants that the matter should be referred to Sub Committee to resolve the dispute between two Government organisations cannot be accepted. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, upholding the eviction orders passed by the authorities under the Act, and dismissing the writ petition with costs quantified as Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the respondent-Municipal. No merit. Dismissed.