K.Kannan, J.

1. Challenge to action for eviction under PP Act, subject matter

1. Both the writ petitions address the same issue relating to the orders passed under the Punjab Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act of 1971 (hereinafter called the PP Act) and by the consent of both the counsel, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

II. Basis of complaints of the petitioners

2. The admitted case is that the petitioners in both the cases had been holding properties within the University Campus, which belonged to the University on lease. The lease period had expired and treating their respective possession as having become unlawful, actions for eviction have been taken. The eviction orders were passed by the Estate Officer and the appeals filed to the Additional District Judge confirmed the orders of eviction passed by the Estate Officer. While the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 16455 of 2009 was granted the lease for the purpose of running a bookshop, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 17037 of 2007 was running the trade of Watches & General Store. As against the petitioner in the former case, their complaint was that the petitioner was attempting to change the nature of user and he had carried substantial alteration in the property without the authority of the University. The unauthorized act attributed to the latter is an alleged installation of a binding machine and doing unauthorized trade. In both the cases, the petitioners themselves had admitted to the fact that they had attempted to modify the respective trades and they sought for permission from the University for such changes. The University had not granted such permission, but decided after resolution, to evict the tenants. Both the petitioners have common grounds to contend that there are several shops within the University Campus and as and when the tenancy period expired, they were all renewed, but a discrimination had been practised only against the petitioners to evict them from the property. The petitioners, therefore, challenge the eviction also on the ground that the University, being an instrumentality of State, was bound to see that their actions were fair, just and reasonable. Complaining that the University was arbitrary in its action and discriminated between one tenant and another without sufficient justification, the petitioners contend that the action of the University in pursuing remedy for eviction against only the petitioners from amongst the host of tenants as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and, hence, liable to be interfered with. III. Justification for action by the respondents

3. The respondents represented through counsel, Shri Anupam Gupta took me elaborately through provisions of the PP Act and through substantial number of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court and of this Court while addressing arguments on the nature of possession after the period of lease had expired and when the University did not extend the lease. He would contend that the possession of the tenants became tenants at sufferance and the only limitation against a landlord was that the possession could have been interfered with, only by process known to law. The action under the PP Act itself was an action contemplated by law and no exception could be taken to the same. Addressing the issue relating to unfair and discriminatory action attributed to the University, the contention was that the petitioners had changed the nature of user of the property to a purpose unauthorized by the terms of the lease and, therefore, the petitioners were liable to be evicted. They had also caused substantial damage to the property and, therefore, there was sufficient justification for taking action only against the petitioners for eviction. Since the lease deeds executed in favour of the petitioners were through unregistered instruments and the terms of the lease were themselves sought to be pressed in service, I had asked th