Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 1666
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
CWP No. 15438 of 2008
Krishan Kumar & Anr.
v.
Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Limited & Anr.
{Decided on 24/02/2012}
For the Petitioners:Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate.
Headnote:(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, S.2(e)--Appropriate Govt.--Whether Central Govt. is an appropriate Govt. in relation to UT of Chandigarh?--Held; in relation to UT, wherever expression “State Government” is used in relation to UT, Central Govt. would be State Government--Expression ‘Central Government’ appearing in Clause (i) and (ii) of S.2(e)(2) of the Act, is in relation to Union Territory of Chandigarh. (Paras 7, 11 & 12)
(B) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Ss.5 & 7--Sealing of Premises--Petitioners has started using premises for a purpose other than for which it was allotted--There was violation of sub-s.(1) of S.5-A of the Act--Such violation was in respect of movable property, premises could be sealed in terms of sub-s.(3) of S.5-C of the Act--Such action is separate and distinct from eviction of an unauthorised occupant u/s.5 of the Act and for recovery of arrears of rent u/s.7 of the Act. (Paras 13 & 17)
(C) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, S.5-A--Petitioners has started using premises for a purpose other than for which it was allotted--Eviction from premises in dispute and proceedings for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and interest--Held; when petitioners were asserting physical possession and have not allowed public premises to be used for public purposes, it is not permissible for them to assert that they are not liable to pay arrears of rent or damages--Public property was deprived of its use only at instance of petitioners--It was on account of multifarious litigation initiated by petitioners at different stages that public premises could not be used--No illegality in order of recovery of arrears of rent, damages and interest thereon. (Paras 13 & 19)
Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - The challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 18.12.1996 (Annexure P.7); 24.1.2001 (Annexure P.13); 14.9.2001 (Annexure P.19); 14.6.2002 (Annexure P.25) and orders dated 4.3.2008 (Annexures P.24 and P.26.)
2. The case has a long and chequered history, but suffice it to say that the petitioners were granted permission to use Unit No. 16 situated on the ground floor of the Hotel Shivalik-View, Sector 17, Chandigarh as a licensee for 3 years for carrying out the business of Textile and Readymade Garments vide letter dated 1.2.1991. Later, the petitioners intended to change the business from Textile Readymade Garments to that of Immigration Consultancy Services. But pending permission, the petitioners started the business of Immigration Consultancy. The petitioners were served with a show cause notice on 3.11.1995 for using the premises for a purpose other than the purpose for permission was granted. In reply to the letter dated 29.8.1996, the petitioners informed the respondents that the Immigration Consultancy business has been closed. It was on 18.12.1996, the licence granted to the petitioners was terminated for violating the terms of the licence. The petitioners were informed that Clause No. 23 of the allotment letter has been violated and therefore, the licence of Shop No. 16 in the Shopping Arcade of the Hotel Shivalik-View is terminated. The petitioners were directed to hand over vacation possession by 23.12.1996. It is pleaded by the petitioners that copy of the order dated 18.12.1996 was never communicated to the petitioners, but the premises were sealed on 23.12.1996.
3. On 28.1.1998, the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), passed an order of eviction against the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed on 12.3.1998. The petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of eviction. The said writ petition bearing CWP No. 14642 of 1998 was disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 27.9.2000, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The said order reads as under:-
“On January 28, 1998, the Estate Officer held that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation on the ground that their “Licence has been terminated due to violation of Clause No. 23 of the Licence for the reason that the shop is occupied for more than one year without any adequate reasons”. On this basis the petitioners were directed to vacate the premises. The petitioners filed an appeal. It has been dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated March 12, 1998. Copies of the two orders have been produced on record as Annexures P.8 and P.10. The petitioners state that these orders are illegal and should, thus, be quashed.
Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 states that the orders dated January 28, 1998 and March 12, 1998 may be treated as having been withdrawn and that the respondents shall proceed afresh in accordance with law as the period of licence has already expired.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. This would, however, not preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law and also from recovering whatever may be due from the petitioners. No costs.”
4. A perusal of the said order shows that the said order was passed in view of the fact that the licence period has expired on 14.2.1997.
5. In terms of the liberty granted, the Estate Officer served a show cause notice for eviction under Section 4 of the Act on 30.3.2001 (Annexure P.15). In pursuance of the said show cause notice, an eviction order was passed by the Estate Officer on 14.9.2001 (Annexure P.19). The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 4.3.2008 (Annexure P.24).
6. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 17.1.2002 under Section 7(3) o
