IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.296 of 2011 Date of Decision : January 07, 2011. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee .....Petitioner versus The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (for short `the SGPC') is aggrieved by the orders dated 11.3.2008 and 26.2.2009 (Annexures P-5 & P-6 respectively) passed by the Collector, Muktsar and the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, respectively, whereby its petition seeking eviction of respondent No.3 under Sections 4 & 6 of the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997, has been dismissed. The Appellate order reveals that as per his own casem, respondent No.3 had spent a sum of Rs.54,391/- on the construction raised on the vacant site let out to him and the said amount was agreed to be adjusted against the rent to be paid by him @ Rs.300/- per month. C.W.P.No .296 of 2011 2 According to respondent No.3, the total rent payable till 15.8.2008 was Rs.51,600/- and, thus, sum of Rs.2791/- was still outstanding against the SGPC. The Authorities have apparently accepted the above mentioned contention of respondent No.3 and have dismissed the eviction petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner though vigorously contends that respondent No.3 has erroneously calculated the arrears of rent w.e.f. 15.8.1994 in stead of 5.7.1991 when he was inducted as a tenant in the site in dispute and the cost of construction incurred by him was Rs.47,100/- only, in my considered view, the concurrent findings of fact like the one noticed above, call for no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Suffice it to observe that the outstanding amount of Rs.2791/- as on 15.8.2008 by now must have been adjusted against the rent which respondent No.3 was liable to pay from 16.8.2008 onwards and thus, the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. With liberty aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of. Dasti. January 07, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE