High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Joginder Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Central)/ - CWP-12559-2006  RD-P&H 5040 (31 July 2006)
CWP No.12559 of 2006
Date of Decision: 11.08.2006
Sub Divisional Magistrate (Central)/ Collector Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL
Present: Shri I.B.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure P/1), vide which, the petitioner was ordered to be ejected from shop No.12, Sub-way, Sector 17/22, Bus Stand, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Further prayer is to quash the order dated 2.8.2006 (Annexure P/2), vide which, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that, as no notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of un-authorised occupants) Act, 1971 (in short the Act) was issued to the petitioner, the orders, under challenge, are liable to be set aside.
Facts of the case are such, that the contention raised, is liable to be rejected. It is not in dispute that the shop, in question, was leased out to one Suresh Kumar. The said lease was cancelled by the competent authority on 8.12.2004 due to violation of the terms of the lease, committed by said Suresh Kumar. Thereafter, notice for ejectment was issued under Section 4 CWP No.12559 of 2006 - 2 -
of the Act to Suresh Kumar and all other persons sitting in the shop. Notice was received by the petitioner and he appeared before the Collector as many as five times. Even in his application, he has admitted that he was paying rent to the original allottee. Before this Court, the petitioner has failed to show his entitlement to continue in possession of the shop, in dispute. He is neither an allottee nor a partner etc. of Suresh Kumar. Furthermore, arrears of rent @ Rs.12,800/- per month have not been paid for the last about two years. Before the appellate authority, a specific stand was taken by the petitioner that he had been paying Rs.22,000/- per month to said Suresh Kumar. Sub-letting is clearly proved on record, which is not permissible as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed, which already stood cancelled. No case is made out for interference.
( Jasbir Singh )
August 11, 2006 ( Pritam Pal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.