CWP No.12281 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12281 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.07.2010 **** Mohammad Unish . . . . . Petitioner VS. UT Chandigarh & Anr. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate for respondent No.2 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.12281, 12286, 12291, 12299 & 12315 of 2009 as common issues are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.12281 of 2009. (2). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 25.06.2009 (Annexure P9), whereby his tenancy has been cancelled by respondent No.2 – Municipal Corporation, UT Chandigarh. (3). The petitioner, who belongs to the poor strata of society was given Shop No.9 in the Panchayat Market of Village Maloya on rent by the Gram Panchayat of the Village CWP No.12281 of 2009.doc - 2 – w.e.f. 01.10.1994 on payment of monthly rent of Rs.525/-. Vide a subsequent Notification dated 19.09.2006, the assets and liabilities of the Gram Panchayat have been vested in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The petitioner, it is alleged, did not pay any rent to the Municipal Corporation since the year 2006 due to which the tenancy has been cancelled vide the impugned order dated 25.06.2009 for non-payment of rent. (4). The petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that he has been paying the rent regularly to the Gram Panchayat, Maloya as he was not aware of the Notification dated 19.09.2006. (5). While issuing notice of motion, this Court vide order dated 13.08.2009 took notice of the fact that the petitioner is a poor person and runs a small business from the subject shop for his livelihood. It was accordingly directed that in case the petitioner would deposit the entire arrears of rent and also agree for the enhancement of the licence fee @ 12%, his ejectment would remain stayed. (6). A short-reply/affidavit has been filed by TPS Phoolka, PCS, Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, wherein it is admitted that the petitioner has deposited the arrears of rent upto 13.08.2009. It CWP No.12281 of 2009.doc - 3 – is further stated that the decision of the appropriate authority i.e. the Finance and Contract Committee of the Corporation regarding fixing of the rate of rent is still pending consideration. (7). In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is hereby quashed with the direction(s) that the petitioner shall continue to pay the monthly rent to respondent No.2-Corporation and shall also abide by the terms of enhancement to be directed by the respondent-Corporation in accordance with the Rules/Byelaws/Policy. (8). The petitioner shall be liable to pay the enhanced rate w.e.f. 1st June, 2009. (9). Ordered accordingly. (10). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 20.07.2010 vishal shonkar