SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was a tenant of Panchayat Samiti, Mukerian - respondent No. 1, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 19.5.2004, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian, exercising the powers of the Collector under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), ordering the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute, and recovery of amount of due rent, amounting to Rs. 2,20,548/- from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue; as well as the order dated 15.2.2005, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the Act, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case will show how a tenant of a local body, by mis-using the provisions of law, remained in possession of a shop let out to him in a public auction for 16 years without payment of a even a single penny as rent. In the present case, in an open auction, the petitioner took shop No. 13 on rent from respondent No. 1 Samiti at the monthly rent of Rs. 825/- being a highest bidder. He took possession of the shop on 1.1.1988. As per the terms and conditions of the auction, the rent was to be paid by the tenant by 10th of every month. The rent was also to be increased by 10% every year. The petitioner did not pay any rent after taking possession of the shop, in spite of the notices issued to him in this regard. Ultimately, respondent No. 1 Samiti was constrained to file an application for ejectment under the provisions of the Act in April, 1993 and for recovery of the rent due, amounting to Rs. 62,557/- at the rate of Rs. 825/- per month, including 10% annual increase for each year, in the rent as per the agreement between the parties. In the said ejectment application, the petitioner was duly served. He appeared before the Collector and contested the application. Both the parties were directed to lead evidence in support of their respective version. Respondent No. 1 Samiti examined two witnesses and produced several documents. The petitioner was afforded many opportunities to cross examine the witnesses and lead evidence, but on three consecutive dates i.e. on 15.3.1994, 18.3.1994 and 21.3.1994, neither the petitioner nor his counsel came present. Ultimately, the Collector proceeded the ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner and decided the ejectment application vide order dated 29.3.1994, ordering the eviction of the petitioner and further ordering the recovery of the rent upto 31.3.1993, amounting to Rs. 62,557/- as arrears of land revenue.
(3.) AGAINST the abovesaid order, the appeal was filed by the petitioner in June, 1994. The said appeal remained pending for four years because of non- availability of the record of the Collector. Ultimately, vide order dated 21.1.1998, the case was remanded to the Collector, Mukerian, to decide the case after affording one more opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the evidence led by respondent No. 1-Samiti. After the remand, the file could not be re-constructed due to non-cooperative attitude of the counsel for the parties and the original file was not available, as the record of the case was destroyed in a fire incident at Record Room, Hoshiarpur. Therefore, the Collector, Mukerian, vide letter No. 2369 dated 29.7.1988 directed respondent No. 1-Samiti to file a fresh case. Accordingly, respondent No. 1-Samiti, after serving notice to the petitioner for payment of arrears of rent of Rs. 2,20,548/- from 1.1.1988 to 30.4.2000, filed a fresh eviction application under the provisions of the Act, before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian, exercising the powers of the Collector. In the said ejectment application, after the evidence led by respondent No. 1 Samiti, the petitioner was afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, but in CWP No. 15264 of 2007 -4- spite of availing several opportunities, the petitioner, yet again, did not lead any evidence in support of his claim. When the case was fixed for arguments, the petitioner only filed written arguments. The Collector, after hearing both the parties, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 19.5.2004, while observing as under : "I have perused the evidence brought on the file and also carefully gone through the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the petitioner. From the documentary evidence it is clear that the Panchayat Samiti Mukerian is the owner of the shop no. 13. The respondent in his written statement admitted that he is in possession of the shop in dispute. The counsel for the petitioner argued that shop no. 13 was leased to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 825/- per month with a stipulation of 10% increase in rent every year and respondent defaulted in making payment of Rs. 2,20,548/- upto 30.4.2000. The respondent has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. No evidence was produced by the respondent to controvert this issue. I am fully agree with the argument of the petitioner's counsel that the respondent also breached the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement. The respondent is in the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2,20,548/- and he is liable to pay the same." Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner. On 4.10.2004, during the pendency of the appeal, possession of the shop in question was taken by respondent No. 4. The Commissioner, vide his order dated 15.2.2005, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.;