C.W.P. No.920 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 27.04.2011 1) C.W.P. No.920 of 1992 Balak Ram …Petitioner Versus The Faridabad Complex Administration and others …Respondents 2) C.W.P. No.916 of 1992 Kewal …Petitioner Versus The Faridabad Complex Administration and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) By this order two cases bearing C.W.P. Nos.916 and 920 C.W.P. No.920 of 1992 -2- of 1992 are decided since common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from C.W.P. No.920 of 1992. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders of eviction passed against him under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for brevity ‘the Act’). Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was a tenant of the Gram Panchayat which was the erstwhile owner of the property right from the year 1970 and therefore continued to be a tenant under the respondent No.1- Faridabad Complex Administration and thus could not held to be in an unauthorized occupation. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has however argued that even under the Act the petitioner could not have been given the Panchayat land on lease for more than one year and that too after auction. Thus the entries referred to by the petitioner would only suggest that he was the tenant who had taken the land on rent in an auction every year. He has further argued that the petitioner had taken a fresh lease from the Faridabad Complex Administration in the year 1980 and the said lease had expired in the year 1982 and thereafter the petitioner became an unauthorized occupant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this could obviously not be so because in the application for eviction it was mentioned that lease had come to an end on 30.04.1982 which is later than that what was C.W.P. No.920 of 1992 -3- mentioned in the eviction petition. This fine point which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner need not detain us because ultimately the order of eviction was passed w.e.f. 30.04.1982 and even for the interregnum the petitioner was directed to pay only at the rate which was mentioned in the lease. Not only that, ever since the writ petition was admitted the petitioner continued to be in possession of land @ Rs.1650/- per year. I find no law or equity in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, these petitions are dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 27, 2011 JUDGE ashish