GOPI CHAND Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition which was directed by the Motion Bench to be heard by a Division Bench, has been filed by Gopi Chand under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a notification of the State Government dated 26th of November, 1963, issued under section 22 and clause (e) of sub -section (1) of section 16 of the Municipal Act removing him from the office of the President and membership of Municipal Committee, Faridkot and further disqualifying him from seeking election for a period of two years from the date of the publication of the notification under sub -section (2) of section 10.

(2.) IT is admitted that Municipal Committee, Faridkot, owns all the shops in Grain Market, Faridkot and a number of other buildings and shops situated in different parts of the city. In the year 1957 a number of these shops were auctioned and the highest bidders were leased out these shops on a monthly rent for a period of one year which period, was subsequently extended from time to time Shop No. 60. in the Grain Market was leased to Shri Asa Nand, father of the present petitioner, on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. Subsequently, the Municipal Committee was superseded and Shri Harnam Singh, Administrator, extended the lease on the same terms, and the lease so extended expired in the year 1961. By that time fresh elections of the Municipal Committee had taken place and the petitioner was one of the members, who was elected along with nine others and was later on elected as the President. By a notification of the Punjab Government dated 3rd of June, 1959, the properties owned by local bodies were exempted from the provisions of the Kent Restriction Act, 1959. Thus there was no statutory control, inter alia, over the increase of rent or over the right of the Municipal Committee to eject existing tenants. However, by a circular letter addressed by the State Government, which is put as annexure 'A' to the petition, the Punjab Government issued instructions to all the Deputy Commissioners that, notwithstanding this exemption they should ensure that the local bodies charged only reasonable rents from their existing tenants and safeguard their interests and for this purpose, inter alia, instructions were issued that there should be no bidding for letting out of their properties and that increase in rent should be fair and reasonable in accordance with the local conditions and, as far as possible, should be uniform in all cases and that for this purpose the increase should be made in consultation with the tenants. In other words the increase should be by negotiation rather than by imposition and that the local bodies should be directed to inform the Deputy Commissioner wherever they enhance the rent and the Deputy Commissioners were directed to ensure that the increase in each case, is fair and reasonable. It is alleged that as a result of these instructions, the tenants under the Municipal Committee wee as secure from enhancement of rents and eviction as tenants of land -owners, to whom the provisions of the Kent Restriction Act applied. In pursuance of these instructions, the Municipal Committee on 9th of June, 1961, by a resolution No. 87 authorised the petitioner in his capacity as the President to make the renewals of allotments of buildings and shops belonging to the Municipal Committee. Consequently the tenancies in favour of previous allottees of all shops, with such increase in rent as was fair under the circumstances prevalent, were renewed. Inter alia, the note put up by the secretary Bawa Dharam Singh, so far as shop No. 66 was concerned, was to the following effect :

(3.) THE relevant portion of sub -section (1) of section 48 is as follows :