Gokal Chand Mittal, J. - (1.) THE Punjab Government constructed Mountview Hotel, Chandigarh, and with effect from 25th September, 1953, the same was leased out to M/s. Northern India Caterers Private Limited (hereinafter called the 'Lessee') for a period of six years at an annual rent of Rs. 72,000/ -. Later on, on the request of the lessee, the annual rent was reduced to Rs. 50,000/ -. Formal lease deed was executed on 21st March, 1959. On 27th August, 1959, the Punjab Government offered to sell the Hotel to the lessee for Rs. 12,000/ -. Since the negotiations were going on, the lease was extended up to 31st December, 1959 However, the negotiations for the sale of the Hotel failed because the lessee did not agree to pay Rs. 12,00 000/ -. Since on the expiry of the lease, the lessee did not vacate the premises, the Estate Officer, cum -Collector Capital Project, Chandigarh, started the proceedings for eviction under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959. Those proceedings were challenged on the ground that the relevant provisions of that Act were unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The lessee's plea failed in the High Court, though he succeeded in the Supreme Court. (See Nor them India Caterers (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Punjab etc. : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1581). This judgment was rendered on 4th April, 1967, While the appeal was still pending in the Supreme Court, on 1st November, 1966. Chandigarh was declared to be a Union Territory and the properties belonging to the Punjab Government became the properties of the Central Government by virtue of the States Reorganisation Act, 1966 and consequently the Hotel came to be owned by the Central Government. On 15th June, 1967, Chandigarh Administration again offered the Hotel to the lessee for purchase at Rs. 12,00,000/ - plus interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the aforesaid price with effect from 27th August, 1959, i.e. from the date of first offer still payment under the completed sale. However, the matter was not finalised and the sale did not take place.
(2.) BY Parliament Act No. 32 of 1968, the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was applicable to the properties held by the Central Government, was amended. By the Amending Act, Section 10 -E was introduced which provided that Civil Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceedings in respect of eviction of any person who was in authorised occupation of any public premises or for the recovery of arrears of rent or damages, with the result, the vice of discrimination, which was pointed out in, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1581 (Supra) was taken away. In view of the amendment, fresh proceedings were started by Chandigarh Administration by issue of notice (Annexure 'P -1') dated 18th November, 1968, under sections 4 and 7 of the Act for eviction and for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 4,28,000/ - at the rate of Rs. 4,000/ - per month for the period from 1st January, 1960 to 30th November, 1968. In those proceedings, final order was passed by the Estate Officer on 14th Way, 1969 (Annexure 'P -2') whereby order for eviction as also for recovery of damages, as claimed, was passed. Against the aforesaid order, the lessee moved the District Judge in appeal. The lessee also filed an application in which it was stated that inspite of the amendment of 1968, the Act was ultra vires the Constitution of India, and therefore, prayed that the matter be referred to the High Court for determination of the vires of the Amendment Act. The prayer was declined by the District Judge and the petition filed by the lessee under Article 227 of the Constitution of India also failed before this Court on 25th February, 1970 Ultimately, Special Leave Petition was filed in the highest Court. Before any interim order could be passed in the Special Leave Petition, the District Judge decided the appeal on 3rd February, 1971 and upheld the order of eviction but the order of damages was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Estate Officer for fresh determination of the compensation in accordance with law after recording a finding that the assessment of damages was not based on any material on the record Copy of the said order is Annexure 'P3' Within a week thereafter, the Special Leave Petition came up far hearing before the Supreme Court on 9th February, 1971, when the following order was passed : - - This special leave petition shall remain pending while the District Judge will dispose of the appeal pending before him. As regards stay, stay of dispossession shall continue on condition that the arrears of the amount payable are paid and also the monthly compensation equivalent to the rent is paid without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The arrears of compensation calculated on the basis of rent should be paid within four months from today. Assessment of compensation before the Estate Officer shall continue but no demand shall be made without the order of this Court. In the meantime, some more notices were issued by the Estate Officer under Section 7 of the Act, which were either not proceeded with or were with drawn, but finally, notice dated 4th November, 1972 was issued under section 7 of the Act proposing to levy damages for use and occupation with effect from 1st January, 1960 up -to -date at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per month. While the proceedings were still pending before the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration made an application on 25th May, 1978 to amend their pleas that the damages should be awarded at the rate of Rs. 15,000/ - per month. The amendment was opposed but was ultimately allowed. The lessee kept on opposing the application on various grounds. Ultimately by order dated 7th April 1981 (Annexure P -5) the Estate Officer assessed the damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per month with effect from 1st January, 1960 till vacation of the premises. The lessee challenged the afore -said order in appeal before the District Judge, Chandigarh, which finally failed on 3rd November, 1981 copy of the said order is Annexure 'P -6'. The aforesaid order has been challenged before us in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the view that there is not the least scone for interference with the well considered appellate order in writ jurisdiction. The following four points were raised before us : - - (1) That the assessment of damages for use and occupation was arbitrary. (2) That even if the assessment was not arbitrary, for the period from 1st January, 1960 to 30th November, 1968 damages could not have been awarded at a rate higher than Rs. 4,000/ - per month. (3) That the recovery proceedings beyond three years were barred by limitation because the proceedings were in the nature of execution and not a suit and, therefore, limitation of 30 years would not apply. (4) That even if the proceedings were within limitation, it was the State of Punjab alone who was entitled to damages for the period prior to 1st November, 1966 and not the Administration of the Union Territory, Chandigarh.;