- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to an communication dated 19.3.2013 (Annexure P-5) whereby the petitioner was called upon to vacate the petrol pump site for the reason that the contract stands expired on 31.10.2012. Thereafter, the proceedings for eviction of the unauthorized occupant under Section 18 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act') were initiated against the petitioner and an order of eviction passed against the petitioner on 1.10.2013. The petitioner approached this Court, wherein the petitioner withdrew the petition with liberty to file an appeal against the order of cancellation lease deed and to vacate the petrol pump in terms of Section 20 of the Act. It is thereafter the Administrator passed an order dismissing the appeal, inter alia, holding that the petitioner fail to clear the rent amounting to Rs. 78,17,377/-. Therefore, the request of the petitioner to renew the lease deed and convert the same to 99 years perpetual lease cannot be considered-However, revision under Section 30 of the Act was dismissed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning & Urban Estates Department, Chandigarh on 20.6.2014 and still aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.
(2.) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner are the proceedings to take possession from unauthorized occupant after the expiry of lease period. Admittedly, the lease has not been extended. In the event of non extension of lease, the petitioner is unauthorized occupant and the order passed by the Authority under Act cannot be said to be unjustified in any manner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Civil Court judgment and decree dated 4.1.2013 (Annexure P/4), wherein respondents were directed to charge rent per filling point to be construed as every additional dispensing machine and not in respect of every nozals/points of the dispensing of petrol/diesel. It is thus contended that the claim of an amount of Rs. 78.00 lacs as due against the petitioner, is against the findings recorded by the Civil Court. It is also contended that the petitioner satisfies all the conditions of extension of lease other than the demand of arrears of rent which is not sustainable in view of judgment of the Civil Court.;