The plea of violation of principles of natural justice is not entitled to be accepted unless it is shown that rights of a party have been prejudicially affected.

ORDER

Sudhir Mittal, J. - A property identifiable as Shop No. 5 was given on licence to respondent No. 1 pursuant to tender submitted by her on 10.06.2010. The tender was provisionally accepted vide communication dated 08.07.2010. In terms thereof an undertaking by way of agreement dated 09.07.2010 was executed by respondent No. 1. Licence was for a period of one year w.e.f. 27.09.2010 till 26.09.2011 on payment of monthly licence fee of Rs. 9,75,000/-.

2. Clause 16 of the agreement entered into between the parties provides that licence fee was payable upto 7th of every English calender month. On failure to do so fine of Rs. 1000/- per day was payable upto 15th of the english calender month and on failure to deposit the licence fee along with fine by 15th of the month, the competent authority could cancel the licence and lock the premises without issuing notice along with forfeiture of security amount and other deposits. Clause 36 stipulates that on failure to vacate the premises on the last date of completion of licence period, the licencee would be liable to pay penal licence fee @ 10 times of the licence fee for the first three months and thereafter @ 20 times for the next three months. On expiry of six months the competent authority could lock the premises.

3. Vide notice dated 05.09.2011, respondent No. 1 was directed to hand over vacant possession on completion of one year period. To avoid vacating the shop, respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing her from the shop in dispute forcibly. An order dated 24.09.2011 came to be passed in the said suit directing the petitioner not to dispossess respondent No. 1 except in accordance with law. Thus, a petition dated 17.01.2012 was filed under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This petition was allowed vide order dated 31.12.2020 i.e. after almost 9 years of the filing of the same. It was held that licence expired on 26.09.2011 and upon failure to vacate the shop even after issuance of notice, the possession became illegal and respondent No. 1 was liable to vacate the same. She was also held liable to pay utilization fee equal to the licence fee from the date of her illegal possession i.e. 26.09.2011 till actual date of vacation with annual 10% increase. Penalty @ 6% of the licence fee would also be payable from 26.09.2011 till date of payment. Respondent No. 1 was directed to make payment within 30 days from receipt of payment details to be furnished by the petitioner within two weeks. If she failed to do so she was directed to furnish property worth 15 times of the amount payable as security and make payment in six monthly installments. The installments would carry interest @ 12 % p.a. This order was challenged by respondent No. 1 by way of appeal filed in the Court of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. One of the grounds taken was that proper opportunity was not granted to her to cross-examine the witness of the petitioner and was also not given opportunity to lead her own evidence. This ground found favour with the appellate Court who set aside the order of the Collector vide order dated 24.03.2021 and remanded the case for a fresh decision. It was also held that the order of the Collector was without jurisdiction as it had been passed in capacity of Assistant Collector 1st Grade.

4. While issuing notice of the writ petition this Court impleaded the then Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak as respondent No. 3 as the Court was prima facie of the opinion that the appellate Court had passed the order on account of extraneous consideration. Thus, a separate written statement has been filed on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appellate Court was in error in remanding the case for a fresh decision. A perusal of the zimni orders on the file of the Collector show that evidence on beh