The denial of the landlord-tenant relationship negates the need for assessing provisional rent, and the provisions of Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the Act are crucial in determining unauthorized occupation.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. A Batch of 10 cases bearing CWP Nos. 17043 to 17046, 17055 and 17059 to 17063 of 2013 is being disposed of by this common order as the facts and law involved therein are identical. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No. 17043 of 2013. In short, respondent No. 3 filed a petition under Section 4 of the Punjab Religious Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 [for short 'the Act'] for seeking eviction of petitioner from the shop in dispute belonging to the Arya Samaj Mandir. On the pleading of the parties, issues were framed and after taking evidence the Collector, Patiala vide his order dated 25.9.2012 passed the order of eviction. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of statutory appeal which has also been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala on 26.2.2013.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, it is submitted that one of the issues before the Collector was as to whether the possession of the petitioner from June 2010 is unauthorized and he is liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 3(b) of the Act to contend that the petitioner would be called an unauthorized occupant if the lease in his favour has been determined or cancelled in accordance with the terms of the lease deed. It is argued that since the petitioner has been paying rent to the respondents and there is no evidence brought on record as to when his lease has been determined or cancelled in terms of the lease deed, he cannot be considered to be in unauthorized occupation as such the petition filed against him under Section 4 of the Act was not maintainable.

3. Secondly, it is argued that the Collector was required to assess the arrears of rent, costs, interest and should have afforded an opportunity to make the payment within 15 days from the date of first hearing, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others" 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514: AIR 2002 SC 2004.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is not covered under Section 3(b) of the Act but covered under Section 3(a) of the Act and its explanation. He has argued that in view of Section 3(a) of the Act, if the petitioner has entered into possession otherwise than under and in pursuance of any lease and has been paying rent would not clothe him with the status of a lessee who could seek the protection of Section 3(b) of the Act.

5. Insofar as other argument is concerned, he has referred to the reply filed by the petitioner to the application filed under Section 4 of the Act in which he has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant alleging that property in dispute belongs to Arya Samaj which manages the Junior School and not Arya Samaj Mandir. In this regard, he has submitted that once the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, Court is not obliged to follow the decision in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan and others (Supra). In this regard, he has also relied upon the following decisions:-

1. Ram Kumar and another v. Avinash Chander and others 2005(1) PLR 538

2. Hukma Devi v. Bhagwan Dass, 2003(2) PLR 371

3. M/s. Rachitech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Kundan Steel Pvt. Ltd. 2007(3) PLR 386

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In order to appreciate the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to refer to Section 3 of the Act, which reads as under:-

Section 3: Unauthorised Occupation of religious premises

For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorized occupation of any religious premises,-

(a) where he has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, entered into possession thereof otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant; or

(b) where he, being a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document