Possession after the lease's expiry without renewal renders the occupant unauthorized under the Act, justifying eviction for misuse of the premises.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

1. Proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (for brevity ‘the Act’) were initiated by Municipal Corporation, Shimla, against the petitioner on 18.03.2019 for eviction from the public premises commonly known as ‘Pashu Padav,’ at Boileauganj, Shimla. The Collector ordered eviction of the petitioner on 21.02.2023. Petitioner’s appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 05.06.2023. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders in the instant writ petition.

During pendency of the proceedings, the impugned orders have been implemented, and the premises in question have been got vacated from the petitioner.

2. Facts.

2(i). An application was moved by respondent No.1- Municipal Corporation, Shimla, before the Collector on 18.03.2019 under Section 5 of the Act, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises commonly known as ‘Pashu Padav’ ‘Pashu Padav’ Boileauganj, Shimla. Petitioner’s eviction was sought on the grounds that: The premises were leased out to Sh. Lakhu Ram (petitioner’s father-in-law) for a period of one year only, w.e.f. 01.04.1952 to 31.03.1953; Petitioner was in unauthorized possession of the premises; Four structures had been constructed in the premises; In two structures petitioners was running a nursery of plants & a shop for selling the plants & seeds and in the other two structures; Petitioner was also trying to encroach the adjacent land of the respondents. Notice was issued to the petitioner on the aforesaid application on 18.03.2019 under Section 4 (1) of the Act to show cause for passing eviction order against her from the aforesaid premises. The notice was served upon the petitioner on 29.03.2019.

2(ii). Petitioner appeared before the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, exercising powers of Collector under the Act, and opposed the application moved by respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation. Petitioner, inter alia ‘Pashu Padav’ bona fide , took the pleas that: Premises in question do not fall within the ambit of the Act; The premises were governed by the then applicable the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, and now by the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act. Eviction petition instituted against the petitioner under the 1971 Act was not maintainable; The property in question had been leased out by the Municipal Corporation to petitioner’s father-in-law (Sh. Lakhu Ram). The lease authorized Sh. Lakhu Ram to charge traders, who come to sell & purchase cattle herds and used the premises- for temporary stay; The petitioner, as authorized, charges the traders for using the property; The eviction petition instituted against the petitioner was not for reasons but out of malice; The allegations in the application/the notice were denied.

2(iii). The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. On considering the case record, the Collector on 21.02.2023 allowed the application moved by respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation and ordered petitioner’s eviction.

2(iv). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner instituted an appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner on 17.03.2023. Along with the appeal, an application for staying the execution and operation of the order dated 21.02.2023 was also moved. Considering that the impugned order passed by the Collector had already been executed, the application was dismissed on 03.04.2023 as infructuous.

2(v). The petitioner, thereafter, invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and preferred CMPMO No.144 of 2023 against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 03.04.2023, disposing of her application seeking interim relief. An ad interim order was passed in the aforesaid CMPMO on 06.04.2023 taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation that till the next date of hearing, the petitioner and her attendants would be permitted to open and