SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(P&H) 862

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and Kiran Anand Lall JJ.
Punjab State Electricity Board
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 4512 of 2002,
Decided On : AUGUST 29, 2002

Lawful possession requires positive consent of the landlord, and continued possession after lease expiration without consent constitutes unauthorised occupation.

Headnote:

Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 - Unauthorised Occupant - Sec. 3, Sec. 5 - 1973 Act, Sec. 3, Sec. 5

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a lessee, continued to occupy the premises after the lease expired, claiming lawful possession due to rent payments accepted by the Board. The Board sought eviction under Sec. 3 and Sec. 5 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the respondent became an unauthorised occupant after the lease expired and was liable for eviction. The Court rejected the argument that rent payments constituted lawful possession and emphasized that the deposit represented damages for unauthorised occupation.

Issues: Validity of eviction under Sec. 3 and Sec. 5 of the Act, Lawfulness of continued possession after lease expiration

Ratio Decidendi: Lawful possession requires a lawful relationship between landlord and tenant. Tenant holding over after lease expiration is a tenant-at-sufferance and liable for eviction. Rent payments after lease expiration do not establish lawful possession.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the orders for eviction were declared illegal and quashed. The respondent was directed to vacate the premises within two months.

Judgment

G.S.SINGHVI, J.

1. This petition is directed against orders Annexures P. 3 dated 18-11-1999 and P. 4 dated 28-9-2001 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhatinda and Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda, exercising the powers of the Collector and Appellate . Authority, respectively under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short, theAct).

2. At the out-set, we may briefly notice the facts necessary for deciding the issues raised in the petition.

3. In the year 1991, the competent authority of the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, the Board) held an auction for leasing out the shop situated within the premises of Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant at Bhatinda. Respondent No. 4-Jagjiwan Kumar gave the highest offer of paying monthly rent of Rs. 735/-. His offer was accepted and the said shop was leased out to him for a period of one year from 2-5-1991 to 1-5-1992. On his request, the term of lease was extended for a period of one year ending in May, 1993. At the end of the extended term of lease, respondent No. 4 applied for further extension, but his request was declined and the shop was put to fresh auction. This time, Shri Sanjeev Kumar gave the highest bid and offered to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1065/- per month. His bid was accepted by the concerned authority. However, possession of the shop could not be given to him because in the meanwhile, respondent No. 4 filed civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda and succeeded in persuading the learned Presiding Officer to grant ad interim injunction against his dispossession. The suit was finally decreed and the petitioner was restrained from dispossessing respondent No. 4 without adopting due process of law. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by District Judge, Bhatinda. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under S. 3 read with S, 5 of the Act for eviction of respondent No, 4 on the ground that he was Unauthorisedly occupying the public premises. Respondent No. 4 contested the application by asserting that even after the expiry of the extended term of lease, he was entitled to retain possession because he was prepared to pay the rent and in fact, the concerned authority had accepted the rent deposited by him from time to time.

4. Shri Hukam Chand, Upper Division Clerk was examined in support of the appli cation. He narrated the details of the auction held in 1991 and then stated that the, application given by respondent No. 4 for extension of the lease was declined by the competent authority and the highest bid of Rs. 1065/- per month given by Shri Sanjeev Kumar in the auction held in 1993 was accepted. He also produced photostat copy of lease agreement, application dated 27-5-1992 filed by respondent No. 4 for extension of lease (Ex. A. 2), photo copy of noting portion whereby decision for re-auction was taken Ex. A.3) and auction-sheet (Ex. A.4). Respondent No. 4 appeared in the witnessbox and produced rent receipts marked as D.W. 3 to D.W. 27 and D.W. 49 to D.W. 57 and letters sighed by the concerned authority for payment of rent marked as D. 1, D.2, D.32 to D. 47. He also produced copies of interim order and decree passed by the Civil Court. Copies of challans vide which rent was deposited in the treasury were produced as Ex. D. 58 to D. 67.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Collector dismissed the application by recording the following observations :

"The petitioner has admitted the giving of shop on rent to the respondent and has not produced any evidence regarding termination of lease. The plea that after the expiry of lease period, lease stood terminated does hot seem to be justified whereas the respondent has produced the original receipts D.3 to D. 27, D. 49 to D. 57 and the copy of the challan D. 58 to D. 67 and has established that the petitioner is receiving the rent continuously and by producing D.1, D. 2, D. 32 to D. 4































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top