IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4981 of 1985 (O&M) Date of decision:18.10.2011 Ram Narain son of Harbhaj, resident of Village Haripura, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore. ....Petitioner versus The Commissioner, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepore, and others ....Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.8026 of 1987 (O&M) Pat Ram son of Lekh Ram, resident of Haripura, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore. ....Petitioner versus The Commissioner, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepore, and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. R.K. Chug, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. Mr. H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for Gram Panchayat, Village Haripura. ---- 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. 1. Both the writ petitions are against the order passed by the authorities constituted under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act of 1973 and they had been filed at the instance of the Gram Panchayat seeking for ejectment on Civil Writ Petition No.4981 of 1985 (O&M) - 2 - the ground that the possession of the property by the respondents was unauthorized and seeking for recovery and possession with damages. The contention in defence was that the property in the respective hands of the petitioners or their predecessors were from the year 1948-49 as tenants and not unauthorized. 2. It was brought out during the course of proceedings that in consolidation, the property was shown as a common land vesting in the Panchayat. The earliest entry showed that one of the petitioner's father had been entered as a tenant on payment of batai but the ownership of the property with the Panchayat itself was clearly established with reference to the revenue entries as well as by the admission of the petitioners that they were in possession only as tenants. Unless a case of permanent tenancy is made, the action for eviction at a time when the landlord was not receiving the rent and when he complained that the possession had become unlawful cannot be resisted by merely contending that the occupation was not unauthorized. 3. The counsel for the Gram Panchayat refers me to several decisions to hold that the Panchayat would be competent to eject even a tenant after his possession is not allowed to be continued by fresh terms of lease. There is no need for reproducing them, because, so long as the case does not involve the issue of title and the ownership in Panchayat is admitted, the action for ejectment cannot be questioned unless the tenant has obtained a subsistence of right to Civil Writ Petition No.4981 of 1985 (O&M) - 3 - continue in possession and shows that he has been paying the rent to term himself as being not in unauthorized occupation. It is an admitted case that no rent had ever been paid during all the time when the proceedings were initiated and when the case was pending. The order of ejectment passed under such circumstances would be perfectly justified. The Panchayat shall be at liberty to apply to the authority for determination of the mense profits during the pendency of the proceedings in accordance with law. 4. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 18.10.2011 sanjeev