IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15754 of 2009 Date of decision: 13th October, 2009 Surmukh Singh … Petitioner Versus Appellate Authority, Mohali and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP No.15754 of 2009 preferred by Surmukh Singh; CWP No. 15755 of 2009 preferred by Caleb and CWP No.15756 of 2009 preferred by Bharat Bhushan, as the averments made in all the three writ petitions are identical. Petitioner had taken 4.33 acres of land situated at Kharar on lease from Defence Estate Officer for a period of two years on 5th June, 2000. The lease was again renewed for another period of two years. The petitioner had to hand over the possession to the Defence Estate Officer on 31st May, 2004. Failure of the petitioner to do so led the respondent to issue notice. In response to the notice, petitioner had not handed over the possession, therefore, proceedings were initiated under Public Premises Act against the petitioner. The Defence Estate Officer, Kendriya Sadan respondent No.2 passed a detailed order holding that petitioner is liable to be evicted from the property, which vested with the Defence Department. Civil Writ Petitions No.15754 of 2009 Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appeal has also been dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Mohali. Petitioner herein has raised following three pleas: (i) Firstly, it has been submitted that after the period of the lease, petitioner became a statutory tenant and he cannot be proceeded against under the Public Premises Act. (ii) Secondly, it has been submitted that the Defence Estate Officer preferred an application for eviction of the petitioner and the Estate Officer decided the same, therefore, maxim of “Nemo Debet Jude Essex in Propria Cause” stands violated. (iii) Thirdly, it has been submitted that in the revenue record, the Defence Department has not been recorded as owner of the land. These three arguments were also raised before the two authorities below and have been rightly rejected by them. The petitioner, having obtained the lease from the Defence Department cannot say that ownership does not vest in the Defence Department. Secondly, the lease was with the petitioner and he was under an obligation to hand over the possession to the Defence Department, who has leased the land to the petitioner. Thirdly, even if the Estate Officer acted in his dual capacity, it cannot be said that principle of “Nemo Debet Jude Essex in Propria Cause” has been violated, as doctrine of necessity is to be invoked because there is no other authority, which can proceed under the Public Premises Act against the petitioner. In view of this, present writ petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 13, 2009 rps 2