C.W.P. No.9304 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9304 of 2010 Date of Decision.19.05.2010 Pardeep Chhabra, Shop No.7, Hotel Shivalikview, Sector 17, Chandigarh r/0 House No.712, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh ........Petitioner Versus M/s Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (CITCO), SCO No.121-122, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director and others ....Respondents Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh K. Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T. Administration and Mr. A.S. Setia, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. The writ petition challenges the order of eviction passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Before the initiation of proceedings, the 1st respondent has given notice of eviction on the ground that the property is necessary for conversion as a Five Star Hotel and for developing a new shopping arcade. Several other tenants had been evicted and the license, which had been granted in favour of the petitioner, expired in 2008 and by a subsequent resolution of the Board, there was a C.W.P. No.9304 of 2010 -2- further extension by one year. There was no further extension beyond 2009 and when the action for eviction was made, it was resisted on the grounds; one, that the original document of licence provided for a term of five years with a right of renewal for a further period of three years on mutually agreed terms. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that on the expiry of the licence period, the extension, was granted only for one year and it was done unilaterally by the 1st respondent without the petitioner's concurrence. There is an arbitration mechanism which is provided under the licence deed and without resolving the dispute, the 1st respondent could not have taken action for eviction. 2. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that amongst other grounds, the respondent had also complained of non-payment of licence fee and an application had also been sought under Section 7. The Estate Officer had passed an order recording the fact that all the rent arrears had been paid and if the amount had also been paid, the cause of action does not any longer survive for the respondent to prosecute the application for eviction. 3. Before the owner of the public premises obtains eviction under Section 4, it has to be proved that the person in occupancy is an unauthorized occupant. In this case, the terms of the licence provide for an extension of the licence period on mutually accepted terms. If the respondent granted the extension for a period of one year and the benefit of such extension was accepted by the petitioner, that cannot be a ground for the petitioner to contend C.W.P. No.9304 of 2010 -3- that such extension must be given for another subsequent year as well. That is why the document contemplates an extension by mutual consent. It is evident that there had been no mutually accepted terms for continuing the petitioner beyond one year period after 5 years namely after 2009. If there is no subsisting contract between the parties, the payment of rent by the petitioner beyond the period of licence, during the pendency of proceedings cannot vest the petitioner with any right to treat himself as an authorized occupant. In fact, in a worse off situation of a tenant continuing in possession of property and the landlord receiving the rent during the proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Cout held that mere receipt of rent will not give rise to a presumption that a tenant is a tenant holding over. The acceptance of rent must be accompanied with an intention to continue the same jural relationship. The mere fact of receipt itself will not make possible such an inference. In fact, only during the pendency of proceedings the rent has been tendered and if it was received pursuant to an application filed under the Act, it cannot avail to the petitioner to contend that the mutual arrangement has obtained in his favour to continue in the property as such licencee. Again, if the petitioner himself has not forced the issue by seeking an arbitration for any dispute that in his perception has come about that imperiled his continuance, it will be no defence to him in an action for eviction taken against him under the Public Premises Act that the respondent should have referred the dispute for arbitration. The order of eviction granted under the circumstances is perfectly justified and there is no scope for C.W.P. No.9304 of 2010 -4- intervention. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out to the proceedings of the respondents, who while taking the decision for expanding the hotel and the infrastructure with increased base for a shopping arcade, contemplated that all the persons who had been licencees would be given the first right of refusal, depending on the availability of the shops in the newly constructed place. The petitioner will continue to have such a right, for the stated decision requires no further elaboration. The only point now is whether the impugned order suffers from any legal vice that is susceptible for a successful challenge. In my view, there is none. 5. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to be considered for allotment at the new place in the manner envisaged and in the manner already decided by the 1st respondent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 19, 2010 Pankaj*