C.W.P. No.20371 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.20371 of 2011 Date of Decision.03.11.2011 Ram Chander s/o Chaman Lal, resident of Ladwa, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and others .....Respondents Present: Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the authority under the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. The contention is that earlier an application had been filed by the Municipal Committee and the Estate Officer had directed the files to be consigned on an observation that parties must obtain a fresh lease arrangement in accordance with Rules. Later, the Municipal Committee appears to have sought for restoration of the application but the Collector dismissed the application observing that there was nothing on record to show that the Municipal Committee was the owner. When a fresh application was filed, the case was rested on two grounds; (i) the respondent is always ready and willing to pay lease and he had paid the lease upto the year 2001 but the Municipal C.W.P. No.20371 of 2011 -2- Committee was not receiving any lease. It is also contended that the Municipal Committee itself had suppressed the fact of earlier dismissal of the petition. 2. When a Municipal Committee filed an application for eviction on the ground that the respondent is not in authorized occupation, the Committee could have been non-suited only on the contention that the Municipal Committee was not the owner of the premises and therefore, the action did not lie. The other alternative that is possible would be that there was a subsisting lease between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner could not have been treated as an unauthorized occupant. We find none of these contentions available in this case. To a specific query from the Court to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner whether the petitioner was denying the ownership of the Municipal Committee, the counsel says that the petitioner is not making such denial but the petitioner is interested in paying rent. A mere intention to pay the rent cannot create a document of lease or obtain a status of lessee entitling to continue in possession. If a transaction has not come about between the parties and the petitioner had last paid the rent only in the year 2001, in the absence of any document, all that could be stated is that the petitioner continued as a tenant from month to month. The moment the Municipal Committee decides to take an action for eviction when the tenant does not secure to himself any fresh document of lease, the action cannot be defeated by an intention to obtain a lease in future. As of now there is no document, which will protect the petitioner from holding on to possession of property when the Municipal Committee seeks for an C.W.P. No.20371 of 2011 -3- eviction. There are no issues of discrimination or violation of Article 14 in this case. 3. The order of eviction passed under the circumstances cannot be interfered with and the writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 03, 2011 Pankaj*