IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 340 of 1990. Date of Decision: 12th December, 2008. Tilak Raj ....Petitioner through None Versus The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division & Anr. Respondents through Mr. J.R.Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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) This Civil Writ Petition seeks quashing of the order dated 7.8.1989 [Annexure P-5] passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 8.8.1988 passed under the Punjab Public Premises and Land [Eviction and Rent Recovery] Act, 1973, has been dismissed. Brief facts are that the petitioner purchased Plot No. 5 measuring 45x12 feet situated at Thana Road, Abohar for a sum of Rs.64,875/- in an open auction being the highest bidder . As per the terms and conditions of the auction, the petitioner deposited 1/4th of the total amount, i.e., Rs.21,625/- and the balance amount was required to be paid in three installments. The petitioner having defaulted in deposit of the balance amount, the Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act, passed an eviction order dated 8.8.1988 along with recovery of Rs.86,500/- as damages for use and occupation of the said plot/shop. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur – the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order dated 7.8.1989 [Annexure P-5]. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. When this petition came up for preliminary hearing on 12.1.1990, the Motion Bench passed the following order:- “The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is prepared to pay the balance sale price amounting to Rs.33,200/- within one month from today. Let the amount be deposited within one month from today with the Registrar [Judicial] of this Court. To come up on 19th February, 1990. Till then the petitioner will not be dispossessed”. Thereafter, on 19.2.1990, the following order was passed:- “ The learned counsel states that Rs.33,200/- have been deposited by the petitioner on 7.2.1990 in compliance with the order of this Court dated 12.1.1990. However, he states that the actual amount would be Rs.54,200/- and the petitioner be allowed to make good the balance by depositing Rs.21,000/- more within a fortnight. Let Rs.21,000/- more be deposited with the Registrar [Judicial] on or before 5.3.1990, for which date the case be posted for hearing. Interim order to continue”. On 6.3.1990, the Motion Bench passed the order which reads thus:- “Says that the balance amount as per order of this Court dated 19.2.1990 has also been deposited. Notice of motion for 23.4.1990. Stay to continue till further orders”. While admitting the writ petition on 4.6.1990, the Bench passed yet another order in the following terms:- “Admitted. Interim order to continue subject to the condition that the petitioner pays Rs.20,000/- more to the Municipal Committee, Abohar within one month from today by sending a bank draft. The petitioner has deposited Rs.54,200/- in this Court. The aforesaid amount lying deposited in this Court be sent by cheque or payment order to the Municipal committee, Abohar to be deposited in the account of the petitioner”. It may, thus, be seen that under the interim orders passed by this Court from time to time, the petitioner appears to have deposited the entire sale consideration for the plot/shop in dispute and nothing remains due from him. That appears to be the precise reason that the petitioner has lost interest in this case as no one appears on his behalf. Be that as it may, the subject property is a source of livelihood of the petitioner and the default of non-payments of the installments, has since been rectified and the Municipality has also been suitably compensated by way of interest. The resumption of the property or eviction, in such like cases, has to be taken as a last resort. Consequently, and for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.8.1989 [Annexure P-5] is set aside. However, if anything is still due or recoverable from the petitioner, the respondent – Municipality shall be at liberty to serve a notice upon the petitioner specifying the said amount which the petitioner shall be liable to pay within one month from the date of receipt of such notice. Disposed of. No costs. December 12, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE