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-said eviction petition by submitting his reply, wherein the ownership of the suit land was admitted to be that of Municipal Committee, however, it was stated that the site plan produced by the Municipal Committee was wrong and against the existing position. It was further stated by the petitioner that he is in possession as tenant since the year 1963-64 and prior to him, his father was a tenant. It was next submitted that the rent of the afore-said property was being increased periodically by the Municipal Committee and lastly, the rent was Rs. 150/- per year, which was being recovered by the Municipal Committee. It was also stated that the petitioner was ready to pay the due rent along with interest. Petitioner denied the claim of the Municipal Committee that he was in an un-authorized possession as he was using the property for residing and tethering animals. Few additional pleas were also taken and prayer for dismissal of the eviction petition was made.

2.2 The learned Collector, vide order dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) accepted the eviction petition filed by the Municipal Committee and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the afore-said suit property.

2.3 Being aggrieved against the order dated 29.08.2011 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the 1973 Act, which came to be dismissed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon, vide order dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure P-5).

3. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court for the relief as noticed here-in-above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are wholly arbitrary and cryptic; therefore, the same are unsustainable in law. It is contended that the authorities below have rightly concluded that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between Municipal Committee and the petitioner, however, in the impugned order, the petitioner has wrongly been described as un-authorized occupant. It is submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh (Annexures P-6 and P-7) and also against the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul (Annexures P-8 and P-9). It is further submitted that the eviction of the petitioner has been ordered primarily on the ground of non-payment of rent, whereas the petitioner never refused to pay the rent and rather, he had stated that he was ready to pay the rent. It is also contended that the possession of the petitioner is permissive and legal, in capacity of a tenant and his tenancy had not been determined till date. Therefore, he cannot be evicted under the provisions of Sections 5 a