The court affirmed that claims for recovery of dues under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Recovery) Act are subject to a three-year limitation period, which the petitioner failed to adhere to.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.(Oral)

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 01.08.1996 passed by respondent No.2-Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, whereby the claim of the petitioner-Transport Corporation was restricted to a period of three years prior to the institution of proceedings for eviction and recovery.

2. As per the averments contained in the present writ petition, the petitioner-Corporation is owner of shop No.4 situated on Court Road Bathinda and that a public auction was held on 19.03.1986 for giving the aforesaid shop on lease. Respondent No.1-Dev Raj, participated in the same and submitted a bid of Rs. 1,525/- per month, however, the highest bid was submitted by one Bhushan Kumar for an amount of Rs. 1,600/- per month. However, notwithstanding the submission of the highest bid by another bidder, respondent No.1 forcefully and illegally occupied the aforesaid shop on 20.03.1986. A number of oral as well as written requests were made to respondent No.1 to handover the vacant possession of the shop which had been illegally occupied by him. Respondent No.1, however, filed a civil suit No.760/17.11.1988 before the Sub-Judge IInd Class, Bathinda and an ex parte stay was granted by the Civil Court. A written statement and reply to the application for interim injunction was filed by the petitioner-Corporation whereupon the interim stay was vacated by the Sub-Judge IInd Class, Bathinda vide order dated 19.05.1990. The said order was challenged by respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No.46 dated 25.07.1990 before the District Judge, Bathinda. The same was also dismissed on 29.01.1991.

3. The petitioner-Corporation thereafter filed a petition under Sections 4 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Recovery) Act, 1973 before the Collector, Sub-Division, Bathinda, for eviction of respondent No.1-Dev Raj from the shop in question as well as for recovery of Rs. 1,47,016/- as arrears towards unauthorized usage and occupation of the premises for the period from 01.03.1986 to 31.03.1991. The interest on the said amount was also prayed for.

4. Evidence was led before the Collector, Sub-Division, Bathinda whereupon the petition filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 19.10.1993 and it was also held entitled to recover the rent @ Rs. 1,600/- per month plus usual charges. Respondent No.1 was also held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,47,106/- as claimed in the head-note of the petitioner and subject to statutory deduction.

5. Aggrieved of the said order passed by the Collector, Sub-Division, Bathinda, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot. The said appeal was partially allowed and it was held that the petitioner-Corporation is entitled to arrears for use and occupation of the shop by respondent No.1 but confined the arrears for a period of three years preceding to the date on which the claim was represented by the petitioner-Corporation to Sub-Divisional Officer.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the present writ petition had been filed claiming that respondent No.1-Dev Raj had forcibly and illegally occupied the shop in question despite the highest bid having been offered by one Bhushan Kumar @ Rs. 1,600/- per month. Hence, the rent/value thereof stood determined. The highest bidder namely Bhushan Kumar however could not take possession of the said shop on account of an interim order passed by the Civil Court. The petition for eviction and rent was filed after the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Court and without any delay. The petitioner-Corporation was thus entitled to claim all arrears. It is argued that an act of Court should prejudice none. Once the petitioner-Corporation was restrained from taking possession of the premises, its interest and rights could not be held as having been rendered remediless. The petitioner- Corporation was thus entitled to the arrears for the entire duration when respondent No.1-Dev Raj remained in