CIVIL REVISION NO.5848 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 20, 2008 State of Haryana and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Hari Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the petitioners. Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. State is aggrieved against the order passed by the lower Appellate Court in partly accepting the prayer of the respondent, whereby the order passed by the Trial Court was modified by issuing direction to the petitioner-State to first compensate the plaintiff after assessing the value of the construction of his house before getting the physical possession of the suit land. The respondent-plaintiff had taken a land measuring 700 Sq.Yards situated at Jind at the rent of Rs.250/- for half year, which CIVIL REVISION NO.5848 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: was renewed from time to time till the year 2002 when the rent was increased to Rs.940/-. The petitioner-State, however, refused to extend the lease beyond 31.7.2002 and did not accept rent from the respondent thereafter. Order under Sections 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act”) was passed on 26.2.2004. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner which was also dismissed. Respondent then filed a civil suit, alleging that the eviction proceedings filed against him were not maintainable on the ground that the State has filed the petition through Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, who was not competent and authorised to file such an application on behalf of the State. Respondent also claimed that he has made improvement and has raised some construction on the residential house and while passing the order of his eviction, the value/expenses of the constructions was not assessed. Alongwith the suit, the respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking interim injunction restraining the petitioners and others from taking physical possession of the suit land on the basis of orders dated 26.2.2004 and 16.2.2006, which were also termed as illegal. The petitioners appeared in response to the notice and contested the suit as well as the application seeking interim injunction. It is pleaded that the land in question was given on lease to the respondent, which was not extended after 31.7.2002. The reason given in this regard is that the petitioners intend to construct a CIVIL REVISION NO.5848 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: poly-clinic for welfare of ex-servicemen. It is also disclosed that the respondent has carried out construction not only over the disputed portion of the land but has also encroached area measuring 1888 Sq.meter, which is not on lease with him. The order of eviction of the respondent has already been made and he also remained unsuccessful in the appeal. The direction given is that the respondent is not to be ejected forcibly, except in due course of law. Since the petitioners were seeking to eject the respondent by following due process of law, grant of interim injunction as sought was opposed. The Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the respondent, finding that there was no prima-facie case in his favour. The Appellate Court, however, has partly accepted his appeal and has observed that the respondent be dis-possessed only after assessing the value of construction of his house and other improvements made in the suit land by him and after compensating him for the same. The only submission which has been made before me on behalf of the respondent is that Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, was not competent to file the eviction application on behalf of the State Government. I am unable to accept this line of argument raised on behalf of the respondent. The respondent otherwise would concede that he had taken the suit land on lease from time to time from Secretary, Zila Sainik Board. If his contention is accepted that Secretary, Zila Sainik Board is not competent to seek his eviction, then the lease in his favour given by said Secretary would also be not valid. If the line of reasoning advanced by the respondent is CIVIL REVISION NO.5848 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: accepted, then the valid lease of the land could be by the State Government. Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, even otherwise is an employee of the State and could move this application for eviction of a person who had been inducted as a lessee by the said official concerned. Apart from this, the respondent could not show any infirmity in the order, whereby direction for his eviction has already been made against which his appeal is also rejected. The respondent would not have any right to continue in this land, once the lease has not been extended beyond 31.7.2002. He has no legal right to retain possession of the land in dispute. His eviction is not being done in any forcible or illegal manner and the petitioner-authority has adopted a legal course available to it in this regard. Though the respondent was given the land measuring 700 Sq.Yards on lease, but he has illegally occupied 1888 Sq.Yards. The residential house of the respondent is stated to be on 3 marlas, whereas 2 kanals and 19 marlas is found to be in possession for the purposes of nursery plantation. He is in unauthorised occupation of this land. No legal justification can really be advanced or seen in favour of the respondent, which would entitle him to retain possession of the land in this illegal manner. The purpose for which this eviction is sought is that the same land is required for use for the benefit of ex-servicemen. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent had carried out construction of house or other construction after obtaining permission from the landlord. The impugned order passed by the lower Appellate Court requiring the petitioners to evict the respondent after assessment of the CIVIL REVISION NO.5848 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: constructions carried out by him, can not be held justified. There is no prima-facie case in favour of respondent and the prayer for interim injunction was rightly declined by the Trial Court, which has been partly interfered with by the Appellate Court without much justification. The order passed by the Appellate Court is accordingly set-aside and the one passed by the Trial Court is restored. The present revision is accordingly allowed. May 20 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE