IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 95 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: February 25, 2009 Punjab State Electricity Board …Appellant Versus Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 6.2.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge upholding order dated 3.1.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge- cum-Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. It is pertinent to mention that the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority has endorsed the view taken by the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, in his order dated 23.10.2008, who has in turn endorsed the view of the Director, Punjab Engineering College, expressed in the order dated 5.6.2008. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant has raised two submissions, namely, that the appellant is entitled to the protection of L.P.A. No. 95 of 2009 Section 77 claiming that the premises in the Punjab Engineering College came to be occupied by the appellant in the year 1965 before the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966. On the aforesaid basis it was argued that its possession is protected under Section 77 of the Act. However, the learned Single Judge has rejected the aforesaid contention by holding that a categorical finding that the hostel rooms in dispute were allotted to the appellant by the Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 18.3.1978 (P-2) and they derive their status from the aforesaid order, accordingly, the first contention was rejected. In any case, the status of the appellant is not more than a licensee and once the licence is withdrawn then the appellant lose the support of law and no right would accrue to it to continue in possession. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the licence granted by the Chandigarh Administration while allotting the rooms of the hostel to the appellant could have been cancelled by the Home Secretary and not by the Director, Punjab Engineering College. The aforesaid contention was also rejected because eventually it is Chandigarh Administration which has passed order on 22.12.2008 cancelling the licence of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has also given the justification for cancelling the appellant’s licence because after the Punjab Engineering College has been declared as a Deemed University, 50% of its seats are required to be filled-in on all India quota basis as against the earlier quota of 15% only. Accordingly, there is increased demand for hostel rooms by the students from outside. Consequently, to meet the aforesaid demand, the appellant’s licence has been cancelled which make available 18 rooms to the students. 2 L.P.A. No. 95 of 2009 We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and are of the view that there is no substantive basis for the appellant to continue with the possession of 18 rooms, especially when it does not have a semblance of right to continue. The necessity of the students must be given preference. The Administration has acted within four-corners of law and, therefore, the appeal does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) February 25, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3