ZILA PARISHAD Vs. COMMISSIONER PATIALA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - By the present judgement, the following eleven petitions are being decided since common questions of law arise therein. The dispute centres round the shops owned by the petitioner which were let out and the present dispute relates to the eviction of the occupiers. In CWPs Nos. 212 and 246 of 2000 the ejectment was ordered by the Collector under the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act but on appeal, the Commissioner set aside the ejectment. In CWPs Nos. 358, 359, 360 and 361 of 2000, there was an earlier round of litigation in which the ejectment was ordered by the Collector. The Commissioner in appeal had held that the petitioner had not served a valid notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Thereafter, fresh proceedings were initiated. Again the Collector allowed the ejectment petition but in appeal the said orders were set aside by the Commissioner. In these four cases, before the appeals were filed by the occupiers, they were dispossessed. However, subsequently, the appeals against these orders were allowed. In CWPs Nos. 475, 476, 477, 478 and 479 ,ejectment was ordered by the Collector but the appeals were allowed and the cases were remanded back to the Collector for a fresh decision.

(2.) APART from these minor divergences, the central facts are the same and are being taken from CWP 479 of 2000. It is averred that originally, the private respondent was given Phari to conduct business. He later constructed a wooden khokha. In 1960s, proceedings were initiated for his ejectment as also for the ejectment of other occupants. The said dispute reached the Supreme Court and by judgment dated 16-10-1969, the said proceedings were quashed in view of the fact that the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 had been declared ultra vires the Constitution. During the pendency of that litigation, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 whereby the shop was given to him as licencee for a period of 5 years. In the years 1976 and 1981, the licence agreement was renewed for a further period of 5 years.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioners who has challenged the orders passed in appeal whereby the orders passed by the Collector have been set aside and Mr. Amit Rawal and Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocates, for the private respondents.