LPA No. 1078 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1078 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision 25 . 5.2011 Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation . Appellant Versus . Kuldeep Singh and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Ankit Goel , Advocate for the appellant Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 23.7.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant- Corporation has to calculate the amount due from the petitioners as per the policy which was prevalent at the time when the written statement was filed by them. The method of calculation of interest is required to be in accordance with the ratio of the Division Bench judgement rendered in the case of M/s Raja Mechanical Works v. State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 76 of 2008 decided on January 16, 2009). The writ petitioner- respondents were to deposit the amount so calculated within three weeks. 2. The dispute in the instant case was that the writ petitioner- respondents approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing order dated 28.7.1989 (P.2) which ordered LPA No. 1078 of 2009 2 their eviction from the property in dispute. Challenge was also made to the order dated 10.12.1993 (P.5) vide which has dismissed the application of the writ petitioner- respondents to set aside the ex-parte order dated 28.7.1989. However, the application of the writ petitioner- respondents was dismissed. Consequently order passed in appeal on 20.10.1998 (P.6) was also impugned before the learned Single Judge alongwith the order passed in the Review Application (P.7). The writ petitioner- respondents were allotted Shed No. D93 and D-94 , Type A in Industrial Focal Point, Khanna in December, 1978. The lease deed was executed between respondent no.3 and the writ petitioners. However, the writ petitioner- respondents failed to make payment of the lease amount which resulted into cancellation of lease on March 27, 1984. When they did not vacate the the property in question, the appellant initiated proceedings against them under the provisions of Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act'). It resulted into an ex-parte ejectment order dated 28.7.1989. The application filed by the writ petitioner respondent for setting aside the ex- parte order was dismissed on 10.12.1993. Their appeal and review application were also rejected. 3. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant pleaded in paras 14 and 15 asserting that the writ petitioner- respondents, did not ever try to clear the outstanding /defaulted amount. It was held out by respondent no.3 that as per the policy of the Corporation, the sheds are restorable in their case if they clear the outstanding dues in lump sum alongwith interest, penal interest, lease rent, restoration charges and legal expenses etc. On the basis of the aforesaid factual position, the learned Single LPA No. 1078 of 2009 3 Judge held that the policy to which reference has been made in the written statement was still in existence and the counsel for the writ petitioner- respondents also stated that they are prepared to make the requisite payment. On the basis of the stand taken by the appellant- corporation and the statement made by the writ petitioner- respondent all the impugned orders were set aside and the following directions were issued: “ In view of statement made, impugned orders are set aside. Respondent – Corporation is directed to calculate the amount due from the petitioners, as per policy, which was prevalent at the time when written statement was filed. The interest be calculated as per ratio of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Raja Mechanical Works v. State of Punjab and others, L.P.A. No. 76 of 2008, decided on January 16, 2009. The petitioners shall deposit the amount so calculated within three weeks from the date of intimation to them. It is made clear that if they fail to do so, this writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and impugned orders shall become operative.” 4. The only issue raised before us is that the appellant- Corporation is entitled to charge compound interest @ 16 percent because it is a case where the lease deed has been cancelled and the sheds are to be restored back to the writ petitioner- respondents. According to the learned counsel, the Division Bench judgement in M/s Raja Mechanical Works case (supra) limits the interest to 16 percent to be calculated by adding simple interest. However, learned counsel for the LPA No. 1078 of 2009 4 respondent has submitted that a perusal of the policy dated 29.3.1993 (A.2) would show that it does not contemplate imposition of compound interest. According to the learned counsel interest @ 16 % is itself a penal interest and in case it is compounded then it will take the shape of unwarranted rate of interest. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The appellants themselves took a stand before the learned Single Judge that as per the policy of the Corporation, the immovable property leased out to the writ petitioner- respondents could be restored if they clear the outstanding dues alongwith interest, penal interest, lease rent etc. The appellant- Corporation is asking for usurious rate of interest which is highly unreasonable and unwarranted. In any case the policy dated 29.3.1993 (A.2) does not contemplate imposition of such usurious rate of interest. Even otherwise, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are based on agreement of the parties and such an order is not open to any challenge in appeal. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal does not merit admission and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 25.5 .2011 Judge okg