IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.21676 of 2011 Date of decision : 22.11.2011 Gurdial Singh ....Petitioner Versus Commissioner Ambala Division and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 3.11.2010, 18.11.2011 and 29.6.2011. Proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were initiated against the petitioner for eviction on the ground that he has failed to deposit the lease amount with effect from 2004- 2005 onwards. In the petition for eviction it was pleaded that since this amount has not been paid by the petitioner, he should be deemed to be in unauthorised possession. Prior thereto also, the petitioner had been litigating with the Municipal Committee and one of the proceedings had culminated in filing of RSA No.599 of 2001, in which proceedings ostensibly the petitioner had not adduced sufficient evidence, but on a concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the C.W.P.No.21676 of 2011 -2- Municipal Committee the matter was remitted back to enable the petitioner to avail himself of the opportunity to lead evidence subject to the condition that he would deposit the lease money @ Rs.4,300/- per acre per annum. The following are the observations made in the aforesaid Regular Second Appeal :- “In view of the fair stand adopted by Sh.Manchanda, the judgments and decree of the two courts below are set aside and the present appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court for fresh decision. Now the learned trial court shall provide three effective opportunities to the plaintiff to lead his entire evidence. The entire evidence shall be led by the plaintiff at his own responsibility and without seeking any assistance of the court. After the evidence of the plaintiff is concluded on those three dates, when two effective dates would be fixed for the evidence of the defendant municipal committee. Similarly, the defendant municipal committee shall also lead its entire evidence at its own responsibility. It is made clear that if either of the parties, namely, the plaintiff or the defendant fail to lead their respective evidence on the date so fixed by learned trial Court then no further opportunity in any manner shall be granted by the learned trial court to the parties. It is further directed that all the arrears of the lease money at the rate of Rs.4300/- per annum shall be paid/deposited by the plaintiff with the municipal committee before any opportunity of leading the evidence C.W.P.No.21676 of 2011 -3- is granted to him. If the arrears of the lease money, as stated above, are not deposited by the plaintiff, then no opportunity of leading any evidence shall be granted to the plaintiff.” The Municipal Committee then raised a demand for the lease money for the year 2004-05 and sought eviction of the petitioner for his having failed to deposit this amount. During the pendency of these proceedings the petitioner moved an application seeking permission to deposit lease money @ Rs.4,300/- per acre per annum in accordance with the observations made by this Court. While disposing of the application, the said prayer was declined by the Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla vide orders dated 8.11.2006 which orders were upheld by the Commissioner, Ambala Division vide order dated 7.2.2007. The petitioner then went up in revision bearing Civil Revision No.1252 of 2007, which was dismissed and the Court held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to deposit lease money @ Rs.4,300/- per acre per annum, as this rate could not be determined to be the actual rate for the said land and he was directed to deposit the enhanced lease money as per the prevalent market rate of Rs.9,040/- per acre per annum. This order was passed on 4.12.2009. In the meantime, since the revision was pending before this Court, the proceedings before the Collector under the Act were adjourned sine die which were sought to be revived by the Committee by filing an application dated 2.2.2010. The petitioner then appeared and submitted that he would deposit the amount in compliance of the order of the High Court in Civil Revision No.1252 of 2007. On C.W.P.No.21676 of 2011 -4- 21.4.2010, the petitioner deposited the balance amount for the year 2005-06 to 2009-10 @ Rs.9,040/- per acre per year. The Collector then observed that there was still an amount of Rs.57,840/-, which was outstanding if the lease money was calculated upto the year 2009-10 and for the subsequent period i.e. 2010-11 also the rent had become due. The Collector while parting with his order observed that after the wheat crop had been harvested by the petitioner, the Municipal Committee would be entitled to retrieve the possession so as to enable the auction for the year 2011-12 as per the norms and the petition was disposed of vide order dated 3.11.2010. The petitioner then once again moved an application which was essentially for settlement of accounts and pleaded that an amount of Rs.21,500/- has already stood deposited in the treasury for the period 2004-05 and after adjustment and due calculation the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.25,681/- plus whole lease money for the year 2010-11 at the prevalent rate within one month otherwise the petitioner would be deemed to have been evicted from the premises. This order was passed on 18.11.2010. The petitioner then challenged this order before the Commissioner, who upheld the order of the Collector and observed that there was no error committed by the Collector who had directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month and dismissed the prayer of the petitioner. This has resulted in filing of the instant petition wherein learned counsel for the petitioner would emphasize that the entire amount having been deposited the respondents could not order his eviction and more so without recording any finding that petitioner C.W.P.No.21676 of 2011 -5- was in unauthorised possession which is the prerequisite under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act is extracted hereinunder :- “5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants.-- (1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4, the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of the date of its publication under sub-section (1), whichever is later, the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer in this behalf may, after the date so specified or after the expiry of the period aforesaid, whichever is later, evict that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be C.W.P.No.21676 of 2011 -6- necessary.” On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the foremost consideration that should weigh with the Court is that the petitioner is in possession of the public property for which the respondents had to struggle to even elicit the very essentials which formed the relationship of petitioner with the respondents that is the recovery of lease amount. It was obligatory upon the petitioner to honour the terms of the lease more so when he was in occupation of the public premises since 2004-05. The petitioner has played truant and has paid the money only after the proceedings were initiated against him. Even when the order was passed in revision by this Court on 4.12.2009 the petitioner did not care to deposit the amount in question and forced the respondents to revive the proceedings against him in which proceedings the petitioner then deposited the amount. This only reflects on the conduct of the petitioner who intends to enjoy the public premises without satisfying the corresponding liability and obligation to pay the lease money. His plea is without any merit. The Collector in his wisdom had observed by making a fair order in favour of the petitioner that after he had harvested the wheat crop of the year 2010-11, the possession would be retrieved from the petitioner by terminating the lease in order to enable the Municipal Committee to auction the said area so as to get the best response and the best deal. The petitioner, who is an errant lessee, cannot claim as a matter of right that the lease in his favour be perpetuated and deprive C.W.P.No.21676 of 2011 -7- the municipal Committee of its right to deal with the property in a more beneficial manner. However, since the amount has been deposited by the petitioner for the current year as well, the benefit of the arrangement should enure to him till the wheat crop is harvested in April 2012. In the meantime, the respondents shall notify the petitioner of their intention to terminate the lease in accordance with law in the eventuality of their resorting to the auction of the land, needless to say the petitioner would be at liberty to participate in the option auction. Before parting with the order it may be noticed that the petitioner was given an option in this Court as to whether he is willing to submit himself to the arrangement of the land being thrown open to auction and he give his best response to such an auction so as to continue on the land which he has enjoyed for substantial years, which at present is not acceptable to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as being without merit with the aforesaid observations. 22.11.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss