Public Premises--Eviction from a khoka--Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by an occupier of the said kiosk

JUDGMENT

Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral):- By this petition, the petitioner, i.e. the Nagar Council, Barnala, has challenged the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, dated 19.10.2015, by which the preliminary issue arising in the suit instituted by the respondent herein, i.e. on the issue of jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain such a suit, has been decided against the petitioner-defendant and in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

The preliminary issue framed, as recorded in the order of the learned trial Court, is as follows:-

“1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the present suit under Section 15 of Punjab Premises Act? OPP

2. Relief.”

2. The suit instituted by the respondent herein is one seeking a declaration to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff is “a genuine owner in possession of one Khokha (kiosk) no.14 size 8’x8'”, with the description of the property also naturally given in the plaint, with him further seeking a declaration to the effect that the order passed by the Deputy Director, Local Self Government, Punjab, Patiala, on 22.7.2014, exercising powers of a Collector under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is an order that is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

3. In the order passed by the Collector under the Act, dated 22.7.2014 (copy Annexure P-1), it is stated that notices under Sections 4(1) and 7(3) of the Act were issued to the respondent herein, who appeared before that authority in response thereto on 22.2.2011, and filed a reply to the notices on 14.6.2012.

It has been held in that order that the respondent herein (plaintiff before the trial Court and respondent before the Collector), had in fact admitted in paragraph 3 of his reply to the notices that the Nagar Council, Barnala, was the owner of the land (on which a kiosk had been erected by him). As per the order, the respondent herein had also admitted that he was not a tenant on the disputed land.

Noticing also that the respondent herein had not been able to lead any evidence with regard to his ownership of the land, it was held that it was the Nagar Council that was the owner thereof, over which the respondent herein had tried to take unauthorized possession by placing a wooden kiosk thereupon.

4. Consequently, his eviction therefrom was ordered immediately, with him also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- for using the disputed land unauthorizedly, and to further pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month till the vacation of the land, in addition to Rs.5,000/- as “legal expenses”. The respondent was also directed to vacate the land within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order.

5. That order having been challenged by way of a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, the impugned order has come to be passed, in which the aforesaid reproduced preliminary issues were framed.

Having framed the issues and having reproduced Section 15 of the Act, that Court came to the following conclusion:-

“Filing suit for declaration is not hit by Section 15 of Punjab Premises Act, since in the present suit civil rights of plaintiffs are involved and present issue has to be decided by proper adjudication before the civil court. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction to try the present suit and preliminary issue is hereby decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has wholly erred in holding as above, because the ownership of the suit property is not disputed even by the respondent in his plaint. His entire case in the plaint is to the effect that he having placed a kiosk (“khokha”) on the suit land, for which he had been paying Teh-bazari fee to the Nagar Council, the order passed by the Collector is wholly unsustainable.

Learned counsel further submits that therefore, the jurisdiction of the Collector not being