IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2835 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 1, 2010 Iqbal Hussain. …Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocte, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioner herein is no longer in possession of the premises in dispute. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had been illegally thrown out of the premises; while the plea raised on behalf of the respondent – HUDA is that possession of the premises had been obtained in accordance with law. On the last date of hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, dared the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, to show to this Court any order which may have been granted by the C.R. No. 2835 of 2009 Competent Authority in directing eviction of the respondent from the disputed premises. The learned counsel for the respondent has today shown to the Court order dated 04.07.1997 vide which the Estate Officer-cum-Collector, HUDA, Faridabad, had granted the orders for the vacation of the disputed premises within 24 hours to be counted w.e.f. 05.07.1997. A copy of the order has been produced which is taken on record as Annexure `A1’ It is noticed in the impugned order itself that the petitioner herein had been afforded opportunity of being heard in person on 02.07.1997 and 04.07.1997. He appeared on the latter date, conceded his being in arrears of rent and further being in unauthorized occupation of the shop under reference but volunteered to pay due rent if he was allowed to retain the shop and sufficient time for payment was granted to him. The plea raised by the petitioner did not find favour with the Competent Authority. It is noticed that the lease period, for which the disputed premises given to the petitioner herein, was over, that the allotment of the premises to him had since been cancelled and that there was no specific ground to allow the retention of the shop by the lessee (i.e. the petitioner herein). It is apparent from a perusal of the above discussion that the respondent – HUDA obtained possession 2 C.R. No. 2835 of 2009 of disputed premises in accordance with law. The petition being denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 1, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3