Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
HARSH BUNGER
Umrao Singh @ Umrav Singh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Gurugram Division – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harsh Bunger, J.
1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Collector, Sub Division Mahendergarh; whereby the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the suit land.
A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon; whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against his eviction order dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) was dismissed. 2. Briefly, respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 5 read with Section 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (in short 'the 1973 Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner from the land described in the site plan by letters 'ABC' and bounded as under
'East: Bucholi Road
West: Agriculture Land and Samadi Acharaya Jain Muni Moti Ramji Maharaj
North : Chhatri and House Raja Bahadar, Mahabir Prasad
South: Gali/Kacha Rasta situated at village Bucholi Road, Mahendergarh.'
2.1 The petitioner contested the afore
Tenancy rights under a Will cannot override specific contractual terms prohibiting assignment without consent, rendering unauthorized occupation invalid under the Public Premises Act.
Unauthorized occupation of public premises does not confer legal rights; eviction proceedings must adhere to statutory requirements, and alleged violations of natural justice must be substantiated.
The Rent Act does not protect tenants of public premises once the Public Premises Act applies, affirming eviction rights under the latter.
The court emphasized that eviction under the Public Premises Act requires subjective satisfaction of unauthorized occupation, ensuring fairness in administrative actions.
Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act cannot resolve bona fide title disputes, which must be adjudicated in a civil court, ensuring respect for legal authority and due process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 has an overriding effect to the provisions of other laws and is a complete code determining....
The necessity for eviction must be justified in addition to establishing unauthorized occupation under the Public Premises Act, as reaffirmed by prior judicial interpretations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
