- (1.) PETITIONER seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of orders dated 03.10.2013 & 06.11.2013, Annexures P7 & P10 respectively whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the premises in question invoking the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act').
(2.) BRIEF factual background of the case is that respondent - Corporation advertised a retail outlet dealership in District Rewari. On 06.07.2001, letter of intent was issued. It was incumbent for the selected candidate to own a piece of land at the location. Petitioner purchased certain land and leased it out to respondent - Corporation. In May, 2002, the retail outlet started functioning after completion of necessary formalities. Dealership agreement dated 14.05.2002 was executed between the parties. Vide order dated 06.03.2007, Annexure P5 allotment was cancelled in view of direction of Hon'ble Supreme court. A Committee constituted by the apex court recommended cancellation of allotment in various States on the ground that dealership had been allotted on political patronage or other extraneous considerations. The court, thus came to the conclusion that allotment was vitiated and petitioners were estopped from pleading equity in their favour. Respondent - Corporation filed a petition under sections 4 and 6 of the Act seeking eviction of petitioner from the premises. The Estate Officer vide order dated 03.10.2013 came to the conclusion that premises fell within the definition of section 2(g) of the Act as an unauthorized occupant. He, thus directed eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Rewari, who exercising powers under the Act, dismissed the appeal. The orders passed by the authorities have been impugned in the instant case.
(3.) MR . Kanwaljit Singh learned senior counsel submits that the entire exercise resulted in undue enrichment of the respondent - Corporation. Balance of equity demands that petitioner should be reasonably compensated. The impugned orders are unsustainable and deserve to be set -aside. Plea has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Corporation. According to him, the issue is no longer res integra in view of judgment of the Apex court in case titled as Mukund Swarup Mishra vs. Union of India and ors., 2007 2 SCC 536. According to him, the Committee was constituted by the Supreme court which went into entire issue and found that allotment was wrongly made. The Supreme court upheld the recommendation of the Committee and cancelled all retail outlets. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.;