PREM KUMAR VERMA Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE thrown in this civil writ petition is to the ex parte order dated 26.8.1983 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 21,150/- and the order dated 28.2.1985 (Annexure P-1) passed, in appeal, by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that the Municipal Committee, Malout, held auction of the weigh-bridge (kanda) in question, for the period 1.4.1982 to 31.3.1983. He also participated in the auction. And, as he was the highest bidder, his bid was accepted. In accordance with the terms of the auction, he deposited the required sum of Rs. 3,750/- with the Municipal Committee (respondent No. 1) as advance rent of three months. However, immediately thereafter, he found that the weigh-bridge was not working. He addressed two letters dated 5.4.1982 and 12.4.1982 to the Municipal Committee in this regard but no action was taken by the Committee for its repair. Therefore, he did not execute the required agreement/rent deed nor he furnished the guarantor/surety for the purpose. So, he did not become tenant of the Committee nor he paid the rent for the remaining period of lease. He, instead, requested the Committee for return of the amount of Rs. 3,750/-, already deposited by him. But the Committee did not return it. Instead, the Committee filed application under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 against him for recovery of rent for the period 1.4.1982 to 31.3.1983 along with interest, amounting to Rs. 21,150/-. In that, he was proceeded ex parte. He applied for setting aside of the ex parte order. But the same was dismissed and order for recovery of Rs. 21,150/- as arrears of rent for the period 1.4.1982 to 31.3.1983, along with interest, was passed against him. He challenged that order in appeal which, too, was dismissed, by the appellate authority viz. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner had been ordered to be proceeded ex parte on 8.7.1983, by the Collector. On 12.8.1983, he filed an application, Annexure P-5, stating that he could not appear in court on the date fixed i.e. 8.7.1983 due to sudden illness and as such, ex parte proceedings be set aside against him and he be allowed to participate in the case. On that day, the case was fixed for recording of evidence of the Committee. The Collector, however, did not pass any order on his application on that day i.e. on 12.8.1983 nor he permitted him to cross-examine the witnesses of the Municipal Committee who were examined on that very day. Ultimately, on 26.8.1983, the Collector passed order, Annexure P-2, ordering recovery of the rent in question and interest, from him. Simultaneously, he dismissed his application for setting aside of the order vide which he had been proceeded ex parte, by recording the following order (Annexure P-6) :