Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.P.Sethi and R.L.Anand JJ.
Charan Singh
Versus
Municipal Committee, Rania
Letter Patent Appeal No. 489 of 1995,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 8, 1996
HARYANA PUBLIC PREMISES AND LAND (EVICTION AND RENT RECOVERY) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 3 - UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION - LEASE DETERMINATION - HOLDING OVER - LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP - OWNERSHIP - RENT DEPOSITS - ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT - JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were in possession of land owned by the Municipal Committee, Rania, under a lease that expired on 15-4-1978. They continued to occupy the land and pay rent, claiming to be tenants holding over. The Municipal Committee filed an eviction petition under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (the 1972 Act), alleging that the appellants were in unauthorized possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellants' possession of the land became unauthorized after the expiry of the lease on 15-4-1978. The appellants' continued payment of rent did not create a fresh tenancy, as there was no consent, express or implied, from the Municipal Committee. The Court also held that the appellants' denial of the Municipal Committee's ownership of the land amounted to a determination of the lease, making their possession unauthorized under Section 3 of the 1972 Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were in unauthorized occupation of the land after the expiry of the lease on 15-4-1978? 2. Whether the appellants' continued payment of rent created a fresh tenancy? 3. Whether the appellants' denial of the Municipal Committee's ownership of the land amounted to a determination of the lease? 4. Whether the Municipal Committee had the locus standi to file the eviction petition under the 1972 Act? 5. Whether the learned single Judge erred in allowing the respondents to place on record an additional affidavit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellants' possession of the land became unauthorized after the expiry of the lease on 15-4-1978, as they had no legal right to continue occupying the land without the Municipal Committee's consent. 2. The Court held that the appellants' continued payment of rent did not create a fresh tenancy, as there was no consent, express or implied, from the Municipal Committee. The Court relied on Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires the lessor's consent for a lease to be renewed from year to year or month to month. 3. The Court held that the appellants' denial of the Municipal Committee's ownership of the land amounted to a determination of the lease, making their possession unauthorized under Section 3 of the 1972 Act. The Court relied on clause (g) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides that a lease is determined by forfeiture when a lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself. 4. The Court held that the Municipal Committee had the locus standi to file the eviction petition under the 1972 Act, as the land in dispute was a public premises within the meaning of the Act. 5. The Court held that the learned single Judge did not err in allowing the respondents to place on record an additional affidavit, as there is no restriction on a Court's power to call upon the parties to furnish better particulars in the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appellants' appeals, holding that they were devoid of merit. The Court also directed that the amount deposited by the appellants in the L.P.As would be adjusted by the respondents against the amount calculated for the use and occupation of the land by the appellants.
R.L.ANAND,J.:-
1. Vide this judgment we dispose of two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 489 of 1995 (Charan Singh V/s. Municipal Committee, Rania) and 490 of 1995 (Pritam Singh V/s. Municipal Committee, Rania), as both the appeals have arisen from one judgment dated 29th March, 1995 delivered by the learned single Judge by which he disposed of Civil Writ Petns. Nos. 1677 and 1678 of 1987.
2. The Municipal Committee, Rania, Tehsil and District Sirsa (hereinafter called the Municipal Committee) and the respondents of these two L.P.Ss. filed petition for eviction of the appellants from the land measuring 82 Kanals 6 Marlas comprised in Rectangle No. 110, Killa Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 situated in village Rania, Tehsil and District Sirsa, and for recovery of damages for the use and occupation of the aforesaid land with effect from 1-4-1978 till the date of the filing of the petition at the rate of Rs. 1375/- per acre under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for short the 1972 Act) alleging that the appellants were in unauthorised possession of the land in dispute and that they had retained it by unlawful means since 1-4-1978. Prior to this the appellants got this land on Chakota (Rent) which expired on 31-3-1978. After the expiry of the period, they ought to have delivered the possession of the land to the Municipal Committee, but they failed to do so. The possession of the appellants is unauthorised and they are liable to pay compensation for the use and occupation of the land at the rate of Rs. 1375/- per acre. This application was resisted by the appellants on the main plea that the petition under Sections 5/ 7 of the 1972 Act was not maintainable and that they are cultivating the land as tenants Gair Maurusi since long and that the Municipal Committee has no right, title or interest in the said land. The Collector Sirsa by declining the defence of the appellants passed the ejectment order dated 26-91983 by holding that the appellants took this land on Chakota (Rent) for 1977-78 only and after the expiry of the said period, their possession has clearly become unlawful and they are liable to be ejected.
3. Aggrieved by the older of the Collector, the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Hissar Division, who vide order dated 29-1-1987 affirmed the findings of the learned Collector and dismissed the appeal. Once again it was held by the Commissioner that this land was taken on Chakota from the Municipal Committee, Rania, and not from the Central Government, as pleaded by the appellants before the Commissioner. The appellants were not satisfied with the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner. They filed two Civil Writ Petns. Nos. 1677 and 1678 of 1987 in this Court, which were disposed of vide judgment dated 29-3-1995 passed by the learned single Judge. The appellants averred in their writ petitions that 660 shares out of 793 shares vested in the Central Government, while the remaining 133 shares vested in the Gram Panchayat, Rania. Mutations in this regard were duly sanctioned. On the basis of these mutations it was pleaded by the appellants in the writ petitions that the findings recorded by the authorities under the 1972 Act could not be sustained. Also it was pleaded that the appellants were in cultivating possession of the land as tenants Gair Maurusi on payment of annual rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per acre under the Central Government and it cannot be said that their possession is unlawful. On these premises the appellants challenged the orders of the Collector as well as the Commissioner with the prayer for their quashment.
4. The petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were contested by the respondents and it was, inter alia, pleaded that mutation dated 3-1-1984, which had been sanctioned in respect of 660/793 shares in favour of the Custodian, had been quashed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
