RAJAN GUPTA,J. - (1.) Petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 8.8.2007, passed by respondent No.2, whereby he has been directed to be evicted from the premises in question. He has also posed challenge to orders Annexures P-8 & P-9, passed by the appellate authority dismissing appeal as well as the review application.
(2.) Petitioner claims that he entered into possession of the premises in question in the year 1973 as a lessee. In the year 1979 a rent deed was executed between petitioner and respondent university enhancing the rent from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- per month. On 1.7.2004 respondent university unilaterally enhanced the rent to Rs. 21,600/-. It thereafter issued a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act asking the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,28,400/- as arrears of rent. Respondent university filed an application under section 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Public Premises Act"), seeking eviction of the petitioner from the shop. Vide order dated 8.7.2007, Estate Officer allowed the eviction petition and directed ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority. Same was, however, dismissed vide order dated 6.9.2010. Orders have been assailed before this court on the ground that status of the petitioner in the premises was of a tenant. University being landlord could only have sought eviction of the petitioner before the Rent Controller and not authority under the Public Premises Act. I find no substance in this plea. Admittedly, the property of the university is a public property and the shop would fall within the ambit of Section 2 (i) of the Public Premises Act. Respondent university sought eviction of the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Public Premises Act, he being unauthorised occupant thereof. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity with the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. Petitioner has also not been able to refute the stand of the university that he is unauthorised occupant having failed to pay the lease money. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction.
(3.) Dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed;