CMPMO 18 of 2003. 26.9.2008 Present: Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. B.C.Verma, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. C.N.Singh, counsel for respondent No. 1. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondents 2 to 4. This is the second petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of the Commissioner (Revenue) determining the arrears payable by the petitioners under Section 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as the Act). Prior to the present petition, the petitioner had filed CMP(M) 455 of 1995 which was disposed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The petitioner had challenged the order passed under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner was set ex parte by the Collector and an order dated 31.12.1994 had been passed by him directing the eviction of the petitioner rejecting the contention that he had already vacated the premises in July, 1994. While disposing of the petition, the Court held: “ 6. The last contention of the learned counsel that he had delivered the possession in July, 1994 cannot be accepted as there is absolutely no record whatever produced before the authority or before this Court to show that he had delivered the possession. -2- The property is immovable property and the person to take delivery of the premises is the Housing Board, a statutory authority. If the petitioner had delivered possession of the premises there would have been a record to evidence the same. The petitioner has not produced any such record. It is not open to the petitioner to say that he left the premises unlocked and that would amount to the delivery of possession. Hence, the conclusion of the appellate authority that the contention of the petitioner is not proved is correct.” The matter was remanded by the Court directing that an opportunity be given to the parties to adduce evidence on record on the question of damages payable. After remand, the matter was again taken up by the Collector, who by order dated 5.12.1997 determined that the petitioner should pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,32,000/-. The appeal was partly accepted giving substantial relief to the petitioner assessing the damages at Rs.250/- per month as against Rs.1000/- assessed by the Collector. A sum of Rs.33,000/- was ordered to be paid. -3- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the Commissioner was wrong in making this assessment as the petitioner was not to pay any arrears for the period beyond 31.7.1994. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the matter has been finally decided by this Court holding that of possession of the premises was not delivered in July, 1994. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. September 26, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.