The judgment emphasizes that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain challenges to orders under the Punjab Public Premises Act is barred, and a wrong decision on merits does not render the order null and void.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. (Oral) - CM No. 3224-Cof 2009 For the averments made in the application, the same is allowed, the order dated 05.03.2009 is recalled and main case is restored to its original number. RSA No. 4068 of 2008 & CM No. 12091-C of 2008

2. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.1.2008, passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, dismissing the suit for declaration, filled by the appellant/plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration to challenge the order passed by the learned Collector as affirmed by the Commissioner under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises Act.

4. The contention of the petitioner was that the orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Public Premises Act, were nullity as the petitioner was not in unauthorized possession of the properties as he was inducted as a lessee for a period of one year in the year 1972 and thereafter, he became statutory tenant by holding-over.

5. Though, the learned trial Court accepted the stand of the plaintiff/appellant that he was tenant by holding-over and not an unauthorized occupant, the finding has been reversed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, by recording the following findings :-

"Shri A.L. Verma, Advocate, made a vain attempt to argue that since the property in question is within the municipal limits of Municipal Council Ropar, no eviction order could be passed by the Commissioner in respect of the premises in question unless and until this premises is taken out of the purview of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which is applicable to properties located within the municipal limits of Ropar city. No such plea has been raised by the plaintiff in the plaint and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to raise any such issue which was not taken up in the plaint because the same would cause a serious prejudice to the rights of the defendants/appellants who would not get any opportunity to refute this contention of the plaintiff, liven otherwise, if any such plea was available to the plaintiff/respondent he could take up such a plea before the authority exercising the powers under the Public Premises Act that the premises in question is governed under the Rent Act and not under the Public Premises Act. The plaintiff could well challenge the order passed by the Commissioner before a competent court of law, but he has not chosen so. It appears to me that the plaintiff knowing fully well that he may not get any relief from the court of law by giving a challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner has opted to file the present suit for declaration and injunction despite knowing fully well that no such suit is maintainable in the eye of law keeping in view the bar created under Section 15 of the Public Premises Act. However, still the plaintiff remained suecessful in continuing with the possession of the suit land measuring more than one acre by filing this suit in the year 2004 which was decided by the trial Court in December, 2005 and thereafter the appeal remained pending before the appellate court until its disposal by this Court. To be very fair, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to assail the eviction order passed under the Public Premises Act with the contention that the notice issued by the Authority under the said act is only in respect of a part of the suit land when the total area of 1.02 acres comes to 44431 Sq.ft., but the notice for eviction makes a reference to the area measuring 17705.25 Sq.ft. Though this contention of counsel for the respondent cannot be appreciated by this court because of the bar created under section 15 above, but even otherwise no prejudice has been caused to the respondent even if there was any defect in the notice stating the area of the land in respect of which the eviction proceeding arc initialed against him. Plaintiff/respondent knew fully well that the defendants/appellants sought his ejectment from the entire land in res