CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14530 OF 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: July 23, 2009. Parties Name Kuldip Singh and another ..PETITIONERS VERSUS The Commissioner and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Rajbir Singh Guron, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab, Mr. Brijeshwar Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4 JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari, to quash order dated July 28, 1989 (P-2) ordering ejectment of the petitioners from the property in dispute. Further challenge is to order dated December 10, 1993,(P-5) vide which application of the petitioners to set aside ex parte order, mentioned above, was dismissed. The petitioners have also impugned order dated October 20, 1998 (P-6), vide which appeal filed by them was dismissed. Further challenge is to the order dated June 18, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14530 OF 2002 -2- 2002 (P-10) dismissing review application, filed by the petitioners against order Annexure P-6. In the month of December, 1978, respondent No. 3 allotted shed No. D-93 and D-94, Type A in Industrial Focal Point, Khanna, to the petitioners. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, lease deed was executed between the parties. Petitioners failed to make payment towards the lease amount. Their allotment was cancelled on March 27, 1984. When the petitioners failed to vacate the property in question, proceedings were initiated against them under the provisions of Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery ) Act, 1973 (in short the Act) and vide order dated July 28, 1989, in their absence, their ejectment was ordered. Petitioners moved an application to set aside that order. Their application was dismissed on December 10, 1993. They also failed in appeal. Review application was also dismissed. Hence this writ petition. In response to notice issued, respondent – Corporation in its reply filed on November 12, 2002, in paragraphs No. 14 and 15 has averred as under: “That para Nos. 14 and 15 are wrong, hence denied. The petitioners have never tried to clear the outstanding /defaulted amount. As per policy of the Corporation the sheds are restorable in case the petitioners / allottees clear the outstanding dues in lump sum along with interest, penal interest, lease rent, restoration charges and legal expenses etc.” It is not disputed before this Court that the policy is still in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14530 OF 2002 -3- existence and the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Counsel for the petitioners states that as per terms and conditions mentioned in the policy, referred to above, the petitioners are ready to make requisite payment. In view of statement made, impugned orders are set aside. Respondent – Corporation is directed to calculate the amount due from the petitioners, as per policy, which was prevalent at the time when written- statement was filed. The interest be calculated as per ratio of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Raja Mechenical Works v. State of Punjab and others, L.P.A. No. 76 of 2008, decided on January 16, 2009. The petitioners shall deposit the amount so calculated within three weeks from the date of intimation to them. It is made clear that if they fail to do so, this writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and impugned orders shall become operative. July 23, 2009 ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge