CWP No. 9278 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9278 of 2007 Date of Decision: 17-09-2008 Bal Krishan Mehta ......Petitioner Versus Zila Parishad, Ludhiana and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri R.K. Handa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri P.S. Khurana, Advocate, for respondent No.1. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Collector on 31.10.2002 (Annexure P.3) and the order passed by the Commissioner on 23.2.2007 (Annexure P.5), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be effected in terms of the provisions of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short `the Act'). The respondent-Zila Parishad has invoked the jurisdiction of the Collector for directing the present petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the shop No. 50 forming part of Guru Teg Bahadur, Market Shopping Complex, Clock Tower, Ludhiana. The said respondent has also sought recovery of arrears of licence fee with effect from 1.9.1999 @ Rs.2256/- p.m. till 31.8.2000 and licence fee @ Rs.2512/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.9.2000 to 31.1.2001. Such application was filed on 18.1.2001. In reply, the petitioner has asserted that earlier one CWP No. 9278 of 2007 (2) Gurcharan Singh was tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.285/-. A sum of Rupees one lac has been accepted as transfer fee from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.285/- and the claim of rent @ Rs.1700/- per month, is void-ab-initio. It was denied that the licence fee was settled at Rs.2256/- per month with increase of 10%, each year as claimed by the the respondent-Zila Parishad. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, acting as the Collector, allowed the application filed by respondent-Zila Parishad, finding that the respondent-Zila Parishad has produced Exhibit P.6, regarding the settlement of the licence fee as well as Exhibits P.1 to P.5 pertaining to the receipts and copy of register. On the other hand, the petitioner, while appearing as his own witness, has admitted the factum that he has not paid rent after August, 1999. The petitioner admitted the correctness of the rent receipts Exhibits D.4 to D.28. He also admitted that after stopping to pay licence fee @ Rs.1870/- per month, he made no effort to pay the licence fee @ Rs.285/- per month. After considering the respective contentions of the parties, it was found that the petitioner has paid the licence fee upto August, 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner has not paid any licence fee, whatsoever. Initially, the licence fee was Rs.1700/- per month and, thereafter, it was Rs.1870/- per month. The petitioner has not produced any evidence, except his own statement, whereas Zila Parishad has examined two witnesses. It was found that the Zila Parishad has let out the property and the rent has not been paid by the petitioner for use and occupation of the property and the respondent-Zila Parishad is entitled to restoration of the possession. Said order was affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is tenant in perpetuity and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to be evicted in a summary manner. It is contended CWP No. 9278 of 2007 (3) that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rupees one lac as the transfer fee, therefore, the petitioner would be deemed to be a tenant under the respondent-Zila Parishad at the same rent, at which the previous tenant was in possession i.e. Rs.285/- per month. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner is a tenant and cannot be evicted in terms of the provisions of the Act, as such Act has no applicability to the facts of the present case. The shop in possession of the petitioner is a public property within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. Though the petitioner alleges that he has paid a sum of Rupees one lac as the transfer money, but no circumstances have come on record as to what was the nature of the transaction. Even if the said amount was transfer fee, but the fact remains that the petitioner started paying Rs.1700/- per month towards use and occupation of the premises. Such charges for use and occupation were increased by 10% every year. The petitioner remained in possession as a licencee from 1996 till August, 1999, when he stopped paying licence fee. The argument that the petitioner continues to be the licencee on the same terms and conditions on which the previous licencee was in possession, is wholly misconceived. For almost 3 years, the petitioner has paid the licence fee at the increased rate. Thus, it is apparent that the licence granted to the petitioner was a fresh licence at the increased licence fee. If that was not so, the petitioner would be the first one to dispute the claim of additional licence fee. Having paid licence fee for three years at the enhanced rate, it is not open to the petitioner to assert that the licence fee, was the one which was payable before the creation of the fresh licence in September, 1996. The petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of his plea that he was the tenant in perpetuity. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that the findings CWP No. 9278 of 2007 (4) recorded by the authorities under the Act, suffer from any patent illegality or material irregularity, which may warrant interference by this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petition, is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE September 17, 2008 ds