CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2334 OF 1985 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 24, 2008 Parkash Chand .....Petitioner VERSUS The Punjab State Electricity Board, Roop Nagar and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: None for the parties. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.2334 of 1985 (Parkash Chand Vs. The Punjab State Electricity Board and others), 4027 of 1985 (Tarsem Lal Vs. The Punjab State Electricity Board and others) and 2335 of 1985 (Jagan Nath Vs. The Punjab State Electricity Board and others) . The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.2334 of 1985. On 14.1.1998, the Division Bench noticed, as was represented by the counsel for Electricity Board that since the filing of the petition, the petitioner had paid the rent and the electricity has been restored. Directions were issued not to evict the petitioner, if he CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2334 OF 1985 :{ 2 }: continues to pay the rent regularly in future. The writ petition was filed, seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 30.11.1984 and 16.1.1985, Annexures P-1 and P-2. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ropar, had noticed the contention of the petitioner that the petition under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short, “the Act”) can not be continued and adjourned the case for evidence of the Electricity Board. Before Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, it was, however, pleaded that the premises in dispute are within the municipal limits of Ropar and only the Rent Controller would have jurisdiction to decide the case under the provisions of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Commissioner noticed that property in dispute belongs to Punjab State Electricity Board and would fall within the definition of “public premises” as defined under the Act and provisions of the said Act would be very much applicable to the property belonging to the Punjab State Electricity Board. It is also noticed that jurisdiction of the Court is barred under Section 15 of the Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition. The issue relates to the fact that whether the provisions of the Act will apply or the Board is required to approach the court of Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner. The stand taken by the Board is that lease has expired and the petitioner is now in an unauthorised possession of the shop. Even the petitioner was not CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2334 OF 1985 :{ 3 }: paying any rent/lease money to the respondents and as such, mis- using the stay order. No one has appeared either on behalf of the petitioner or the respondents. The case is pending since the year 1985. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this writ petition. The Board also seems to have reconciled with the position. Dismissed for non-prosecution. March 24, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE