ISHAR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated December 22, 1997 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the orders of the authorities for taking possession of public premises under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, 'PP Act'). The lease of the public premises had been resumed under the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973 (for short, the 'Act' and the 'Rules'). Public premises comprise a booth/shop for the trade of furniture bearing No. 225, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh.

(2.) By letter dated September 3, 1979, booth was allotted on lease to Niranjan Kaur and her four sons Ishar Singh, Pritpal Singh, Bablu and Bintu (alias Inderjit Singh and Sardool Singh) by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration. Allotment was governed by the Act and the Rules. Various terms and conditions were set out in the allotment letter. Allottees violated the terms of payment of instalments and also committed breach of condition by assigning the booth to M/s. Kang Furniture and Co. (also described as Kang Enterprises). Lease of the booth was cancelled and proceedings were initiated to resume the booth. By order dated October 13, 1987, the Estate Officer cancelled the lease and forfeited the security amount of Rs. 2,249/-. It was directed that the amount of arrears be recovered as arrears of land revenue and possession of the booth be taken under the Rules.

(3.) Describing as "Niranjan Kaur and others" an appeal was filed under the Rules (Rule 22) before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh against the order of the Estate Officer cancelling the lease of the booth. This was dismissed by order dated February 28, 1990. It was held that it was a case of illegal transfer of the booth by the appellants which was allotted to them at concessional price. The booth had been sublet to M/s. Kang Enterprises against the terms of the lease. Contention of the allottees that a partnership had been entered into between M/s. Kang Enterprises was repelled. The Chief Administrator observed that "a perusal of the copy of so-called business agreement produced before me reveals that there does not exist a real partnership between the appellants and M/s. Kang Enterprises, who are in the physical possession of the said booth because of the essential ingredients of a partnership firm are not contained in that agreement." It appears matter was thereafter taken to the Punjab and Haryana High Court but without success.