C.W.P. No.2142 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) C.W.P. No.2142 of 2008 Date of decision:16.07.2009. Devinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents (2) C.W.P. No.1055 of 2009 Date of decision:16.07.2009. Madan Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents (3) C.W.P. No.1056 of 2009 Date of decision:16.07.2009. Bhupinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents (4) C.W.P. No.1065 of 2009 Date of decision:16.07.2009. Subhash Kanodia ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents (5) C.W.P. No.1066 of 2009 Date of decision:16.07.2009. Balbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents (6) C.W.P. No.1068 of 2009 Date of decision:16.07.2009. Manohar Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents C.W.P. No.2142 of 2008 -2- (7) C.W.P. No.1148 of 2009 Date of decision:16.07.2009. Raj Dulari and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. T.P.S. Tung, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.2152 of 2008. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP Nos.1055, 1056, 1065, 1066, 1068 and 1148 of 2009. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Chaman Lal Premy, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. This order will dispose of 7 writ petitions bearing Nos.2142 of 2008, 1055, 1056, 1065, 1066, 1068 and 1148 all of 2009. To dictate order, facts are being taken from CWP No.2142 of 2008. This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to order dated 30.03.2007 (P-2) ordering ejectment of the petitioner from shop No.8, situated in Gandhi Bazar, Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Further challenge is to the order dated 23.10.2007 (P-4) dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, shop in dispute is in the ownership of Panchayat Samiti, Kharar. As per record, respondent No.5 – Panchayat Samiti filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, by stating that the period of lease in favour of the original allottee has expired. The petitioner, is an unauthorized occupant, and as such, has no right to remain in possession of the shop in dispute. Upon notice, reply was filed by respondent No.5 stating therein C.W.P. No.2142 of 2008 -3- that in the year 1950, this shop was taken on lease by grandfather of the petitioner namely Kartar Chand, who died on 02.10.1992. On the basis of Will, his son (father of the petitioner), namely Parkash Chand came in possession of the shop in dispute. After his death, petitioner is running his business from this shop. It has further been stated that the petitioner was paying rent regularly and it was being accepted by the authorities, without raising any objection. However, respondent No.5 stopped accepting the rent in month of August 2005. It is an admitted fact that Collector did not give any opportunity to both the parties to lead any evidence. Matter was disposed of, on the basis of some spot inspection, made by the Collector concerned, at the back of the petitioner. Ejectment was ordered on 30.03.2007, by observing as under: - “After hearing the parties and the perusal of the record it appears that the Panchayat Samiti had given on rent shop No.8 to a tenant but now which is being run by respondent No.2. It is clear that the shop has been subletted. The other side could not produce any such evidence which could prove that the shop has not been subletted. It is also correct that there is a Civil litigation between the parties and the petitioner has been restrained from dispossessing them forcibly. As such the Panchayat Samiti could not auction afresh and is suffering a financial loss. As such this petition is accepted and the respondents are directed that they may vacate the premises within thirty days from the date of receipt of this notices. In case the respondents do not vacate the shop within the stipulated period, the Panchayat Samiti shall be at liberty to have a warrant of possession from this Court for further action. File after service be consigned to the record C.W.P. No.2142 of 2008 -4- room.” Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by giving similar reasons. Hence this writ petition. In para No.2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made the following averments: - “That the number of shops in Gandhi Bazar, Kharar are owned by the Panchayat Samiti, Kharar. The said shops were given on rent in open auction in the year 1950's. Shri Kartar Chand grandfather of the petitioner took the shop no.8 on rent from respondent No.5. Kartar Chand died on 02.10.1992 and after the death of Kartar Chand the premises in dispute was inherited by the father of the petitioner through a Registered Will dated 15.08.1992. Thereafter the death of Parkash Chand, the father of petitioner, the premises in dispute was inherited by the petitioner on the basis of Registered Will 25.10.2000 and since the petitioner is running the business of a cloth shop which was originally started by the grandfather of the petitioner.” In reply thereto, in written statement filed by respondent No.5, it has been stated as under: - “That the contents of para No.3 are wrong and denied. The petitioner concealed the fact that his grandfather Kartar Chand died on 2.10.1992 and still not disclosed the actual date of death of his father Parkash Chand. Moreover the petitioner continued to deposit the licence fee with respondent No.2 till 2000, in the name of his so called his grandfather, who expired in 1992 and never brought this vital fact on record deliberately. Further at the time of physical visit by the respondent no.3 while conducting the proceedings under the Public Premises C.W.P. No.2142 of 2008 -5- Urban Rent Restriction (Eviction) Act, 1947 at the premises of the petitioner found that actually it was not the petitioner rather there was a subletee running the shop and thereafter, he came to the conclusion in passing order dated 30.03.2007 Annexure P-1, in accordance with the law. Moreover, the petitioner neither applied 3 months in advance before the expiry of the lease period in accordance with the afore referred rules to retain the premises and as he became unauthorized occupant after the expiry of lease period. Further, he stopped, paying licence fee and is a chronic defaulter and causing recurring financial loss to the respondent no.5, a local authority.” After reading contents of both the paragraphs, it is clear that at one time, shop in dispute was given on rent to grandfather of the petitioner. Both the Courts have not mentioned as to whom shop was subletted. Application for ejectment was field only against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that anybody else was running business from the shop in question. Finding given by both the Courts below are vague and do not refer to any fact, to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of subletting the shop in question. Further more, the entire matter has been disposed of on the basis of alleged spot inspection conducted by the Collector concerned. The inspection was made in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner has said that he is running his business from the shop in dispute and nothing was brought on record to prove to the contrary. In application for ejectment, no such ground of subletting was alleged against the petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court feels that order of ejectment and order passed in appeal cannot be sustained. At this stage, Shri T.P.S. Thung, who represents the petitioner, C.W.P. No.2142 of 2008 -6- gives a very fair offer that in case the matter is sent for reconsideration to the Collector, the petitioner shall enhance rent to the tune of Rs.1,700/- per month. This Court feels that offer made is very justified and genuine. It is on record that till 2005, the respondent No.5 continued to receive rent at the rate of Rs.83/- per month only. Under orders of this Court, rent, on the old rate, has been paid up to 30.04.2009. Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate, who represents the petitioners in other cases, has also given an undertaking in the same terms, as stated by the petitioner. In view of above, these writ petitions are allowed. Order passed by the Collector and order in appeal are set aside. Matter is remitted to the Collector to decide it afresh. The petitioners are directed to make payment of the rent from April 2009 to July 2009 on the old rate and after the month of July onwards, they shall make the payment of rent at the rate of Rs.1,700/- per month. They are also directed to move application before the Panchayat Samiti, Kharar with an undertaking that their tenancy be regularized at the rate of Rs.1,700/- per month, with further increase at the rate of 10% per annum. The Officer concerned is directed to consider their request sympathetically. It is made clear that if their request is rejected, then the Collector shall proceed further in the matter, give opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence and, thereafter, decide the application as per law. Till such time, the litigation continues, the petitioners shall pay rent at the rate, as undertaken by them, in this Court. These writ petitions stand disposed of. July 16, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod JUDGE