CWP No. 6287 of 2011 CWP No. 6242 of 2011 1 CWP No. 6248 of 2011 CWP No. 6274 of 2011 CWP No. 10092 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6287 of 2011 Date of decision October 12, 2011 Inderjit Singh ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CWP No. 6242 of 2011 Inderjit Singh ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CWP No. 6248 of 2011 Rajiv Kumar Vij ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CWP No. 6274 of 2011 Inderbir Singh ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CWP No. 10092 of 2010 Rashpal Singh ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CWP No. 6287 of 2011 CWP No. 6242 of 2011 2 CWP No. 6248 of 2011 CWP No. 6274 of 2011 CWP No. 10092 of 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. All these writ petitions are against the order of ejectment passed against licenses from Zila Parishad in respect of shops occupied by the respective petitioners. The terms of license deed provide for a period of 10 years and now at the expiry of 10 years period, the licensees have the liberty to secure a fresh renewal by paying an increase of 10% per annum of the amount of the existing license fee. If a fresh license deed is not made with an offer to pay 10% increase within a period of three months of the expiry of license period, the licensee shall have the liberty of securing 20 times the license fee as penalty for the period of such occupation without permission. The authorities did not seek for the recovery of penalty but chose to apply for eviction on the ground that the tenants had not secured a renewal of lease under fresh terms by an offer of increase by 10%. The respective order also provides that the respondents would be liable for the recovery of the rent during the period when they were in occupation. CWP No. 6287 of 2011 CWP No. 6242 of 2011 3 CWP No. 6248 of 2011 CWP No. 6274 of 2011 CWP No. 10092 of 2010 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that in CWP No. 10092 of 2010 this Court had dismissed the writ petition, insofar as it was directed against the relief of ejectment was concerned but had issued a notice only for consideration of whether the respondents would be entitled to the penalty stipulated under the license deed. The respondents themselves have not in any way challenged the lack of specific provision for claiming the penalty during the period when they continued in possession and the respective orders merely provided for eviction with rent during the period when they were in occupation. The order passed in CWP No. 10092 of 2010 grants, however, the liberty to apply to the respondents for grant of license on fresh terms. As far as other petitioners are concerned there is no rejection of the claim against the orders of ejectment passed. Learned counsel offers to pay the rent as stipulated up to the period of lease and also pay 10% increase as provided already. He would contend that there is no scope for payment of penalty as contended by the respondents by the only fact that the impugned orders themselves did not provide for the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that all the petitioners have been tenants for the last nearly 10 years and they are all carrying on some business in small scales. After all the respondents could only put the property to fresh lease and it would be only appropriate that the tenants shall continue to remain on fresh terms that would provide for an increase of 10% from the date when the respective deeds of license expired. For the contumacious default in failing to pay the rents and the failure to obtain the renewals, I would think that it would be appropriate that the respective petitioners are directed to pay five month's license fee as amount payable to retain the possession. The provision for payment of 20 CWP No. 6287 of 2011 CWP No. 6242 of 2011 4 CWP No. 6248 of 2011 CWP No. 6274 of 2011 CWP No. 10092 of 2010 times the license fee, in my view, is oppressive and in terrorem and I would hold that five month's license fee of the pre existing license would meet the ends of justice. 4. The orders of eviction are set aside and the petitioners shall be allowed to continue, if they will pay license fee up to the previous license period and also pay 5 times the monthly licence as a recompense for the failure to obtain renewal and pay 10% increase from the respective dates when the license period expired. All the arrears shall be paid including the damages as ascertained now within a period of two weeks from today. On tender of such amounts by the petitioners in all the cases other than CWP No. 10092 of 2010, the respondents shall accept the same and the competent authority shall consider renewal of the license in the manner directed above. As far as the petitioner in CWP No. 10092 of 2010 is concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the respondents for fresh renewal and the respondents shall duly consider the same and take appropriate decision on such reasonable terms, including the payment of arrears within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If the amounts are not tendered in the manner directed above within the stipulated period, the orders of eviction already passed shall be sustained and the respondents will be at liberty to secure possession in accordance with law. 5. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. 6. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 12, 2011 archana