Civil Writ Petition No.5510 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5510 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: September 05, 2011 Sat Pal Verma .....Petitioner VERSUS The Panchayat Samiti, Garhshankar & others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr. K.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Soni, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Asstt. AG, Punjab, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner prays for quashing of Annexures P-7 & P- 9, whereby he has been held to be in unauthorized occupation of the premises in dispute and therefore, an order of his ejectment was passed on 29.7.1991. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, was also dismissed on 18.12.1991, which the petitioner has challenged through the present writ petition. While admitting the writ petition, dispossession of the petitioner was stayed as an interim measure. Civil Writ Petition No.5510 of 1992 -2- The petitioner retired as Junior Engineer in the year 1988 and was in receipt of a monthly pension. The petitioner was occupying quarter No.2, Old Hospital, Garhshankar as a tenant of the Panchayat Smiti since 1977. He was paying the monthly rent of `50/-, which was raised to `55/- and again to `61/- in the year 1988. The petitioner had never defaulted in payment of rent. In July, 1989, Panchayat Samiti had filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from the aforesaid premises. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Garhshankar exercising the powers of the Collector dismissed the application holding that the relationship of the landlord and tenant was fully established. The Panchayat Samiti filed an appeal against this order. The appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner. These orders were not challenged by the Panchayat Samiti and all orders become final. Subsequently, the Panchayat Samiti through its Executive Officer sent a notice dated 12.7.1990 whereby the lease in favour of the petitioner stood terminated and cancelled. The petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the premises to the Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner responded to this notice by pleading that the same was illegal and arbitrary. It was also stated the said notice was issued during the penedency of the case before the Commissioner. The Panchayat Samiti, thereafter, had moved a petition under Section 4/5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 for eviction of the petitioner before the Collector. The petitioner submitted his reply. The Collector, Garhshankar allowed the said petition and ordered eviction of the Civil Writ Petition No.5510 of 1992 -3- petitioner from premises. As already noticed, the appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was also rejected. Once the petitioner has retired and his lease, which may have been upheld earlier, has been terminated, the petitioner obviously would not have any right to continue or to occupy the premises. The petitioner has retired from service and thus, cannot be permitted to remain in occupation of the quarter belonging to the Panchayat Samiti Garhshankar. Due to passage of time, it is not sure that the petitioner still continues to occupy the demised premises or not. Both the counsel made an attempt, but have not been able to have instructions in this regard. The case has, therefore, been taken up for deciding the writ petition on merits. In the reply filed, it is stated that the respondents have rightly served notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and there is no requirement of assigning any reason. Once the tenancy of the petitioner has been terminated against which he did not take action due to order of eviction legally passed by the competent authority, the petitioner obviously would not have any right to continue or to occupy the demised premises. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is called for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. September 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE