CWP No. 6261 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 6261 of 2008 Date of decision 21 .4.2008 Kulbir Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus The Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.R.Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 3.5.2007 ( Annexure P.3) passed by Collector cum Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot- respondent no.2 and order dated 27.2.2008 ( Annexure P.5) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot- respondent no.1. A further prayer has been made for issuance of direction to respondent no.3 to not to evict the petitioners from the shop in dispute. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the tenants in possession of the shop in dispute. On 5.5.1990 an ejectment application was filed before the Rent Controller, Faridkot which was dismissed. However, the appeal filed by respondent no.3 was accepted on 7.4.1995 by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner filed Civil Revision No.2395 of 1995 in this Court which was allowed on 1.11.1999 and eviction order was set aside by this Court with liberty to the respondents to proceed under the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act,1997 (for CWP No. 6261 of 2008 2 brevity 'the Act'), if permitted by law. Respondent no. 3 accordingly filed a petition for eviction of the petitioners under the Act on 26.6.2000 on the ground that they are in illegal possession of the shop. On 22.4.2003,on the basis of compromise deed, a consent order was passed to the effect that the petitioner after leaving 8' place from the wall of the shop in dispute which adjoins the wall of Bank would get a wall constructed upto 1.5.2003 in its area at its own expenses and that the petitioners would pay rent @ Rs.750/- p.m. from 1.5.2003 . It was further agreed to enhance the rent @ 15% on Rs.750/- after every three years. Respondent no.3 filed an application for execution of the order dated 22.4.2003 passed on the basis of compromise deed. During the pendency of the application, petitioners filed Civil suit wherein interim injunction was granted to the petitioners restraining respondent no.3 to raise the construction of the wall. Again on 14.7.2005, respondent no.3 filed an application under Section 4 read with Sections 5 and 6 of the Act on the ground that after the consent order dated 22.4.2003, neither the petitioners allowed respondent no.3 to construct the wall nor have they paid the agreed rent . After hearing both sides, respondent no. 2 on 3.5.2007 ( Annexure P.3) passed an order to the effect that petitioners are tenants of respondent no.3 and on account of non payment of rent and for breach of compromise deed dated 22.4.2003, the petitioners became unauthorised occupants of the shop. Accordingly the petitioners were ordered to be evicted from the shop in dispute. The petitioners were further directed to pay rent w.e.f. 1.5.2003 to 30.6.2005 @ Rs.750/- p.m. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2007, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot- respondent no.1. Their case has been dismissed by respondent CWP No. 6261 of 2008 3 no.1 vide order dated 27.2.2008 ( Annexure P.5) by observing that the appellants did not file any appeal against the order dated 22.4.2003 which has attained finality and that they have failed to comply with the order dated 22.4.2003. The respondents were forced to file ejectment application on the ground of non payment of rent and breach of compromise. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted position that on 22.4.2003 eviction petition of the petitioners was disposed of on the basis of the compromise deed dated 22.4.2003. However, the petitioners have failed to comply with the terms of the compromise deed and did not challenge the order dated 22.4.2003 which has attained finality. According to the compromise deed, the petitioners were required to get a wall constructed upto 1.5.2003 in their area at their own expenses after leaving 8' place from the wall of the shop in dispute which adjoins the wall of the Bank. It was further undertaken by the petitioners that they would pay rent @ Rs.750/- p.m. from 1.5.2003 and that the rent @ 15% on Rs. 750/- was to be enhanced after every three years. The afore-mentioned order has not been complied with which has attained finality. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that no interference of this Court in the well reasoned findings recorded by the authorities below is warranted. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 21.4.2008 Judge okg