- (1.) AJAY Tewari, J. - This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.86 whereby the Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), allowed the appeal filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 against the order dated 18.11.85 passed by the Defence Estate Officer, Jalandhar Circle, Jalandhar Cantt, ordering the eviction of the said respondents under the Act.
(2.) A lease of defence land measuring 7.39 acres in Jalandhar Cantt was granted to the father of respondents No. 1 and 2 for a period of five years on 1.6.58 to 31.5.63. From time to time its lessee had handed over certain portion of the said land to the petitioners on their demand and the lease was also extended from time to time. Admittedly the lease was not extended beyond 31.5.1975 even though the respondents continued in possession. Ultimately by letter dated 10.5.83 the respondents were asked to hand over vacant possession of the land. Subsequently by letter dated 6.4.84 they were asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 7500/- as damages from 1.6.1975 to 31.5.1983. A notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued to the respondents on 22.4.1985 and later in due course order of eviction was passed against them on 18.11.1985. Against the said order the respondents filed appeal which was allowed by the impugned order. Sh. Kamal Sehgal, attacking the Appellate order, urged that the learned Appellate Court fell into error in holding that the petitioners had continued accepting the rent from the respondents No. 1 and 2 and that the fact that they had surrendered a portion of the land after the expiry of the original lease period on the asking of the petitioner showed that qua the rest of the land the lease stood renewed, As per Mr. Sehgal, the demand for and the acceptance of damages could not give rise to the inference that rent was being accepted. He has relied upon the case of Jafar Saddique and others v. DDA reported as 2003(2) RCR(Rent) 381 whereby the Delhi High Court held a as follows : "The payment of damages itself under the PP Act cannot create a right in favour of the petitioner as it only implies that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the land for which he is being charged. It has been held so in the case of Aisha Jalal (supra)."
(3.) IN my opinion the above mentioned judgment clearly negatives the finding that the acceptance of money would necessarily imply that rent was being accepted and not damages.;