C.W.P. No.13142 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 06-11-2008 1. C.W.P. No.13142 of 2008 Ram Gopal .... Petitioner VERSUS Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala & others .... Respondents Present:- Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1& 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.3. 2. C.W.P. No.10421 of 2008 Pirthi Raj .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others .... Respondents 3. C.W.P. No.10519 of 2008 Chander Bhan .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others .... Respondents 4. C.W.P. No.10520 of 2008 Ram Bilas .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others .... Respondents 5. C.W.P. No.10987 of 2008 Swatanter Kumar .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others .... Respondents C.W.P. No.13142 of 2008 -2- 6. C.W.P. No.10422 of 2008 Ram Lal .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others .... Respondents 7. C.W.P. No.17648 of 2008 Pawan Goel .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others .... Respondents Present:- Mr. Sumeet Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Sameer Rathore, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.4. 8. C.W.P. No.10539 of 2008 Karam Chand .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others .... Respondents Present:- Mr. G.S. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- HEMANT GUPTA, J This order shall dispose of bunch of writ petitions arising out of C.W.P. No.13142 of 2008 -3- orders passed by the Collector on an application under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Haryana Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the common order of the Commisioner dated 26.03.2008, whereby the appeals filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the Collector was dismissed. For the facility of the reference, the facts are taken from C.W.P. No.13142 of 2008. The respondent-Panchayat Samiti has sought eviction of the petitioners by filing an application under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. It was pleaded that the shop was rented out on 30.06.1997 at the rent of Rs.360/- per month. The rent has been increased to Rs.480/- per month and the same has been paid upto 30.04.2005. It was pointed out that the period of tenancy is over and the notice of eviction dated 30.03.2005, was served upon the petitioner. In view of the said fact, the respondents sought the eviction of the petitioner from the premises under his occupation. The stand of the petitioner in the written statement before the Collector, was that the rent has been increased by respondent only on 01.08.2004 for a further period of 3 years, therefore the petitioner cannot be evicted. It was also pleaded that on 20.10.1996, the Panchayat Samiti has passed a Resolution determining the terms and conditions of the auction. One of the conditions is that the rent of the shop shall be increased by 10% after every three years. Therefore, in terms of the said condition, the Panchayat Samiti can increase the rent, but has no right to seek eviction from premises in possession of the petitioner. The learned Collector found that the offer of the petitioner that he is ready to pay rent is not material as after the expiry of the tenancy period, the possession is unauthorized. In view of the said fact, the order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. C.W.P. No.13142 of 2008 -4- The said order was affirmed in the appeal as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the rent has been revised w.e.f. 18.02.2004 for a period of 3 years, therefore, the petitioner cannot be ordered to be evicted. However, it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the relationship of the petitioner and that of Panchayat Samiti are of a licencee and licensor. A licence can be terminated at any point of time. Once the licence has been terminated, the Panchayat Samiti is entitled to possession. The licencee has no right to possession, but only given the right to use the premises. Therefore, as a licencee of Panchayat Samiti, the Panchayat Samiti has a right to seek rent from the petitioner in terms of Resolution. Thus, the invocation of the jurisdiction of the authority under the Act cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present petitions. Hence, the same are dismissed. However, if the petitioners furnish an undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31.12.2008 and also deposit the entire agreed arrears of rent within three weeks before the Collector, the petitioners shall not be evicted on or before 31.12.2008. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 6th November 2008. (Nawab Singh) Monika Judge