HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17995 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2011 **** M/s. Fateh Cold Storage (P) Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & 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. Akshay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. VM Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the eviction order dated 22.05.2006 (Annexure P1) passed by the Collector, Mansa under the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 as well as the order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure P2) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot dismissing the petitioner’s appeal against the above-stated eviction order. (2). Suffice it to mention here that the landlord – Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Mansa filed the above-stated eviction petition against the petitioner and respondents No.4 to 6 inter alia on two grounds, namely, (i) non-payment of CWP No.17995 of 2002.doc - 2 – rent; and (ii) subletting. It appears that the arrears of rent were tendered and as such the first ground was not pressed into aid. As regards the other ground, it stands categorically proved that the demised premises was let out to the firm M/s. Jagdish Rai Amar Nath comprising the petitioner and respondent No.6 who later on said to have sublet the same in favour of respondents No.4&5. While the case of the petitioner and the private respondents was that it was a case of entering into partnership amongst them, the petitioner in para 3 of his written statement took up the plea that he was carrying on the business all alone. (3). In the light of these contradictory pleas taken by the tenants and keeping in view the fact that the shop in dispute was admittedly let out to the petitioner and respondent No.6 and the onus stood shifted on them to prove as to in what capacity the other respondents were sharing the possession, the concurrent finding of fact regarding subletting of demised premises warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (4). It may also be noticed here that no ad interim stay having been granted to the petitioner by this Court, the possession of the demised premises was taken by the CWP No.17995 of 2002.doc - 3 – landlord-Sabha and the same has been let out to some other tenants. (5). For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. 23.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge