C.W.P. No.23525 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.23525 of 2010 Date of Decision.04.11.2011 Sham Sunder Kalra s/o Mohan Lal Kalra r/o Guru Nanak Colony, Faridkot .....Petitioner Versus The Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Faridkot and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for respondent No.4. 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 case was originally directed to be adjourned but the counsel for the petitioner insisted that the respondents have not filed the counter and the case must be taken up. I have, therefore, given him audience and when I proposed to pass an order dismissing the petition, the counsel wants that the case must be adjourned again for filing the reply. I find this to be an improper conduct of the counsel and I have proceeded to pass the order. 2. The petition challenges the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in a petition filed by the petitioner. His contention was that the C.W.P. No.23525 of 2010 -2- property had been granted in licence to the respondents No.2 and 3 for erection of a mobile telecom tower on a monthly licence fee of Rs.5,000/- for a period of 20 years and that after the first payment of Rs.5,000/-, rest of the amount has not been paid. A formulation for settlement was made by the Permanent Lok Adalat and proposed to the respondent, which was not accepted and therefore, the case was decided after taking up the respective versions of the parties. The Permanent Lok Adalat found that after licence was taken, the tower could not be established on account of 3rd party interference and when the judicial proceedings had been taken under Section 133 Cr.P.C. alleging obstruction to a pathway and terming the act of attempted installation of a tower as constituting public nuisance. 3. The respondent No.3 contended that they could not erect the tower at all and they had to shift themselves to some other place. The Permanent Lok Adalat found under the circumstances that they should continue to be liable till a formal order of cancellation of licence was made and the property was delivered back to the petitioner. But having regard to the fact that the effective user of the property was not possible for the respondent No.3, the authority had directed that 50% of the amount shall be paid within 90 days after notice of cancellation was made, which would meet the ends of justice and if the amount was not paid as directed, the 3rd respondent shall pay the whole amount. It is this order, which is in challenge before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if the respondents could not effectively use the property, they would still become liable to pay the licence fee when the licence was not cancelled C.W.P. No.23525 of 2010 -3- and when the property was not delivered back to the petitioner. While I would accept the contention that the tenant was bound to deliver back possession of property if he did not want the continuance of possession due to any obstruction, it must be noticed that the law also casts an obligation on the lessor to protect the possession either as a tenant (Section 108(1)(b) of Transfer of Property Act) or as a licencee (Section 57 and 58 of Indian Easement Act). In a situation where Permanent Lok Adalat found that peaceful possession was not possible for the licencee and the petitioner had done pretty little to give peaceful possession, it was justified in providing for a remission and at the same time balancing the scale by allowing the concession to be availed only within a period of 90 days and if the property was not delivered back possession or the amount were not paid, the respondents would continue to be liable to pay @Rs.5,000/- per month. The order was perfectly justified under the circumstances and I find no reason for interfering with the same. 5. The writ petition is dismissed affirming the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 04, 2011 Pankaj*