Civil Writ Petition No.11640 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11640 of 2008 Date of decision:26.08.2009. M/s Satinder Engineering Works ...Petitioner Versus Punab State and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Kasturi Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to an order dated 13.03.2008 (P-13) vide which, in appeal filed by respondent No.2, the petitioner has been ordered to be ejected from an industrial plot bearing No.5, situated in Industrial Focal Point, Amritsar. Counsel for the parties heard. Vide allotment letter dated 19.08.1986 (P-1), industrial plot, as mentioned above, was allotted to the petitioner on lease hold basis. Possession of the plot was delivered to it thereafter. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the plot was allotted to set up an industry, to manufacture agricultural implements. A complete ban was imposed to carry on any other business in that plot, without getting permission from respondent No.2. Paragraph No.10 of the allotment letter reads thus: - Civil Writ Petition No.11640 of 2008 -2- “You shall not carry on without the written consent of the Corporation or permit to be carried on in the plot or in any building thereon any trade or business whatsoever, or use the same or permit the same to be used for any purpose other than that for which it has been allotted to you. You shall also not do anything whatsoever, which in the opinion of the Corporation may be nuisance annoyance or disturbance to the neighbours.” It was provided in the allotment letter that in the event of breach of any condition of the allotment letter, the Corporation shall have the right to cancel allotment of the plot and take back its possession and also to forfeit the entire amount, paid by the allottee, by that time. Record reveals that the petitioner had constructed two residential buildings over the plot in question and also set up branch of one bank, therein. On coming to know the same, a notice was sent to the petitioner for cancellation of the lease, which, after getting response from the petitioner, was in fact cancelled on 19.11.2003 (P-7). Entire amount deposited by the petitioner was ordered to be forfeited. Petitioner was directed to hand over vacant possession of the plot to Sub Divisional Engineer of respondent No.2, within 30 days. When he failed to do so, proceedings were initiated under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 for petitioner's ejectment from the plot in question. Application was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 15.06.2005 (P-12), by observing as under: - “I have heard the ld. Counsel for their respective parties and also examined the record minutely. Although, it is proved from the facts on record that the plot in question is Civil Writ Petition No.11640 of 2008 -3- a public premises as defined U/s. 2 of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, yet the petitioner has failed to prove the illegal and unauthorized possession of the respondent over the said plot. Neither the petitioner has produced any evident proof on record for the amount due towards the respondent nor the counsel for petitioner raised any objection at the time of arguments. The petitioner has also issued no due certificate to the respondent vide letter No.3304 dated 3.5.94. I also find that mere violation of Clause 13 and 14 of the terms and conditions of agreement does not make the occupant as unauthorized occupant of the premises. The ld. counsel for the petitioner has focused his arguments upon the bank building operating in the said premises. The counsel for petitioner submitted in his arguments that the respondent/occupant cannot sublet the premises to anybody as it is contravention of the terms and conditions of the agreement. In reply to this argument, counsel for respondent stated that the said bank branch has been operating since a long time. Moreover, the petitioner has also opened their bank account in the said branch and this branch also cater to the other industrial units of focal unit. Hence, I am of the view that the opening of nationalized bank branch in the said premises by the respondent does not make him as unauthorized occupant. In view of above observations, the possession of the respondent over the plot in dispute cannot be treated as unauthorized and illegal. Therefore, the petition is, Civil Writ Petition No.11640 of 2008 -4- hereby, rejected. Arrange the file and consign to record room.” Respondent No.2 went in appeal, that was allowed vide the impugned order dated 13.03.2008 (P-13). Hence this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that once the Collector has come to a conclusion that the petitioner was not sitting unauthorizedly in the plot in dispute, the Appellate Authority was not justified to pass the order under challenge. This Court feels that the argument raised is liable to be rejected. It is an admitted fact that the order dated 19.11.2003 (P-7), cancelling lease in favour of the petitioner, had become final as it was never challenged by the petitioner. If that is so, nothing more was to be noticed by the Collector, to order ejectment of the petitioner. After cancellation of the lease, petitioner had no right whatsoever to remain in the property in dispute. It was not open to the Collector to opine that on account of construction of branch of a bank, in the plot in question, whether the petitioner has become unauthorized occupant or not? The Appellate Authority, when allowing appeal of respondent No.2, has observed as under: - “After having gone through the written arguments put forth by the parties and carefully examining the record of the lower, I find that plot No.5 was allotted on lease to the respondent by the appellant for industrial purpose. As per terms and conditions of the allotment, the respondent is legally bound to fulfill the conditions of the allotment but the respondent has failed to abide by the terms and conditions as mentioned in the allotment letter and the said plot has been misused for residential purpose besides two shops Civil Writ Petition No.11640 of 2008 -5- and Bank office. The respondent has himself admitted during the course of hearing that a Bank Branch has been constructed in the plot which was otherwise meant for setting up of opening of industry. He also admitted that Bank Branch is not an industrial activity. But, he admitted that they shall close the Bank and shall take out their residence from the plot. The mere fact admitted by the respondents related to opening of Bank Branch, clarifies that the plot has been used for purposes other than setting up of industrial unit. Therefore, the appeal is accepted and order dated 15.06.2005 of lower court is set aside. Respondent is directed to hand over the possession of the said plot to the appellant.” This Court feels that finding given by the Appellate Authority is justified. It has come on record that contrary to terms and conditions of the lease deed, instead of setting up an industrial unit, the petitioner had constructed residential premises and a bank branch in the plot in question. There was clear violations of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, on account of which the authorities were justified in cancelling lease in favour of the petitioner. Once lease stands cancelled, the petitioner's occupation of the plot in question, automatically becomes unauthorized. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. August 26, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod JUDGE