IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11228 of 2007 Date of Decision: July 9, 2008 Bhawishan Kumar …Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner, Roopnagar and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Garg, Advocate, for Mr. Pavit Singh Mattewal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 29.5.2003 (P-8), passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector Rupnagar, exercising the powers under the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Land Recovery) Act, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). A further prayer for quashing order dated 4.6.2007 (P-9), dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner has also been made. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3-Punjab State Electricity Board had allotted Shop No. 2, Shopping Complex, Thermal Colony, Nuhon, Rupnagar, on lease hold basis to one Major C.W.P. No. 11228 of 2007 Singh-respondent No. 4, who was running the business of sweets in that shop. The petitioner has claimed that he had entered into partnership with Major Singh in his sweets business on 24.5.1989 and on 24.3.1990 a fresh lease deed was executed by respondent No. 3- PSEB. On 15.5.1990, Major Singh, the original allottee, is stated to have given an affidavit to respondent No. 3-PSEB to transfer the lease of the sweets shop in favour of the petitioner. There is correspondence between the petitioner and respondent No. 3-PSEB. However, the fact remains that transfer of tenancy in the name of the petitioner has never been effected. The Sub Divisional Magistrate- cum-Collector has recorded categorical findings in that regard, which have been upheld by the Commissioner. The concluded part of the order dated 4.6.2007, passed by the Commissioner reads thus:- “ After hearing the arguments of learned counsel of both parties/representative of the department and on careful consideration of record received from the lower Court, it has transpired that the present appeal of the appellant is baseless nor he could produce any concrete evidence in his favour. On 24.3.1990 lease deed of shop No. 2 was executed between P.S.E.B. and Major Singh proforma respondent No. 2 for 11 months and same is not valid now nor the rent due has been regularly paid to the department. In addition to above according to the documents produced by the department, the appellant has made unauthorized construction on the backside of shop. Thus it is proved that the appellant is in unauthorized possession of the disputed shop because P.S.E.B. is 2 C.W.P. No. 11228 of 2007 owner of this shop and lease deed dated 24.3.1990 is still in the name of respondent No. 2 and as yet it has not been transferred in his name and appellant failed to produce any proof to show that the allotment of the shop has been transferred in his name. Keeping in view the facts there is no requirement of interference with order dated 29.5.2003 passed by the lower Court. Therefore, the appeal of appellant is rejected and order of dated 29.5.2003 of the lower Court is upheld. The file be consigned to record room. Order announced.” 3. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has deposited the charges for user. However, the payment of such charges for use of property by the petitioner cannot be regarded as payment of rent constituting the petitioner as tenant. Therefore, no claim can be made on the basis of aforementioned assertion. In that regard reliance can be placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board v. State of Punjab, 2003(2) ILR P&H 655. 4. Moreover the petitioner is in un-authorised possession as he has never been allotted shop in question. There is further finding recorded by the Collector as well as by the Commissioner that un- authorised construction at the back of the shop has been raised. The shop was allotted to one Major Singh-respondent No. 4 and continued to be so till date. Despite various applications filed by the petitioner and offer made by the respondents to the petitioner, he did not agree to pay the condition of paying market rent. Keeping in view the categorical findings recorded by the Commissioner (supra), we are of 3 C.W.P. No. 11228 of 2007 the considered view that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The instant petition is wholly misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) July 9, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4