CWP No.9104 of 2002

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP No.9104 of 2002

Date of Decision.18.12.2014

Sh. Ram Dev Goel

.......Petitioner

Versus

Haryana Tourism Corporation through its Managing Director and others

......Respondents

2.

CWP Nos.9105 to 9110, 9137, 9140, 9141, 9181, 9184 and

9185 of 2002

Present:

Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Roopak Bansal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. C.S. Singh, Advocate for

Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate

for the respondents.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

-.-

K. KANNAN J.

1.

This batch of writ petitions challenge the correctness of the

orders passed by authorities constituted under the Public Premises Act.

The eviction was sought on the ground that the respective acts of

possession of the petitioners have become unauthorized on the non-

compliance of the demand contained in their notices issued to them

requiring them to vacate the premises on expiry of the licence granted

to them to occupy the premises belonging to the Tourism Corporation.

2.

The notices issued on 4.6.1997 and other dates in the same

month to the various tenants set out the fact that the shops which were

PANKAJ KUMAR

2014.12.19 17:20

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CWP No.9104 of 2002

-2-

13 in number had been granted licence for carrying on business of either

the petitioners or their predecessors and they were not willing to pay

the higher rent which were demanded on the basis that the market

values had increased. The petitioners protested and would make a case

that they had not been in arrears of rent and the demand of higher rate

was not justified. There was an attempt to prove before the Estate

Officer that there had been no arrears at all and there was no justifiable

ground to direct eviction.

3.

The authorities upheld the plea of the Tourism Corporation

and directed eviction finding that notices had been issued in accordance

with law and their continuance in possession had not been under any

contract written or implied that allowed for its subsistence.

Consequently, the orders of eviction had been passed.

4.

I find from the file that against the interim orders of the

High Court that allowed for protection of the possessions of various

occupants, there had been civil appeals before the Supreme Court in

C.A. Nos.6095 to 6101 of 2002 and the Supreme Court had allowed for

their continuance in possession subject to condition that the entire

arrears of rent had been paid and that each of the petitioners shall pay

` 3,000/- per month, if not already deposited within a stipulated period.

The Supreme Court had in its order dated 23.09.2002 directed the

disposal of the case within a period of six months and that any amount

that had been paid would be properly adjusted.

5.

The case had not been disposed of within the time as

stipulated for the reasons which are not germane but the fact remains

that the petitioners have enjoyed all the benefits of the order by their

PANKAJ KUMAR

2014.12.19 17:20

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CWP No.9104 of 2002

-3-

continuance at the modified rates of rent which were directed to be

paid.

6.

The only point that falls for consideration in this case is that

whether the Corporation had a right to secure vacant possession when

their own demand for enhancing the rent was not complied with and

when they issued notices terminating the licence period and calling upon

them to surrender possession immediately. I have examined all the

notices and I find that amongst the petitioners, the person in possession

of Shop no.1, shop No.2 and shop No.3 are actually persons who claim

under their predecessors in whose favour the