Satya Parkash Goyal, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of six petitions Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1822, 2518, 2520, 2633, 3234 and 3868 of 1973 as they involve a common question of law. For the purpose of this judgment, the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 1822 of 1973 have been noticed.
(2.) THE Petitioner was granted lease for a fixed term of the land in dispute owned by the State of Haryana. As on the expiry of the lease, he failed to deliver possession, the Collector issued notice, Annexure 'B' to show cause as to why the Petitioner may not be ejected and damages recovered for wrongful occupation of the said laud. After filing of the reply, ejectment order, Annexure 'B' was passed on January 1. 1973 and the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1074/ - on account of damages which was equivalent to the one -third of the produce. An appeal filed against that order having been dismissed by the Commissioner vide Annexure 'F' dated March 27, 1973 the Petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the said orders.
(3.) ALTHOUGH several grounds were taken in the petition to challenge the impugned orders but the only one pressed at the time of the arguments was that prior to the assessment of the damages, no notice under Sec. 7(3) of the Punjab Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by Haryana Act No. 33 of 1969, was issued. The argument is wholly misconceived. No doubt the State, in the written statement, has admitted that no notice under Sec. 7 of the Act was issued but that is factually incorrect. In the notice, Annexure 'B' referred to above, the Petitioner was called upon to show cause both against eviction and the payment of damages. So it was a combined notice under Ss. 4 and 7(3) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, urged that a notice could be issued as provided in Sub -section (2) of Sec. 7 only after the assessment of the damages This argument, again, is not sustainable because the damages can be assessed only after notice has been issued under Sub -section (3) and under Sub -section (2) the order to be issued is the one requiring the party to pay damages. That order obviously is the impugned order. The liability to pay rent at the rate of one -third of the produce was never disputed by the Petitioner. As the damages had been assessed at that rate, the Petitioner possibly cannot have any grievance against the assessment of the damages. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.;