KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER,AMBALA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in C.W.P. No. 2472 of 2010 challenges the order passed by the authority under the Public Premises Act where the claim was made for eviction on the ground that the Audit had raised an objection as to how the tenant was allowed to continue after the initial period of lease of one year had come to an end and when there was no fresh lease made. The petition had been filed on 17.05.2005 and it is an admitted case that the tenant had paid rent upto 30.04.2005 i.e. upto the month before when the petition came to be filed. The eviction has, however, been ordered on the ground that the tenant had not paid the rent and that the period of lease had expired. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as far as the issue of non-payment of rent is concerned, the default did not arise at all, for the rent had been paid upto 30.04.2005 and therefore, on the date of filing of petition, there had been no default. As far as the contention that the period of lease had expired, the petitioner makes reliance on the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad (Sales, lease and other alienation of property and public places Rules), 1964 and contends that it is not necessary for the Panchayat to lease out a property afresh in case where the tenant offers to pay rent at additional 10% for every year. The relevant rule is reproduced as under:-

(2.) According to him, he was always prepared to pay the additional rents for every year commencing from the date when the petition was filed. If there are rules, which allow for extension of lease beyond the initial period and if the tenant is willing to pay the additional rent as required under the Rules, he cannot be treated as an unauthorized occupant to justify an action for eviction.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the tenant has not been paying rent without addressing the point that the rent had been tendered upto 30.04.2005 when the petition was filed. In any event, learned counsel for the respondent relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board versus State of Punjab, 2003 1 RCR(Civ) 48 that dealt with the issue of continuance in possession after the expiry of the lease period and where the Court held that the tenant will be considered as an unauthorized occupant if a further extension of lease is not granted by the authority. Learned counsel also refers to yet another judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 13142 of 2008 and batch of other cases where the Court has held that after the expiry of the period of rent, the Panchayat Samiti will be competent to apply for an eviction. I find that the Division Bench has not had an occasion to consider the effect of the relevant Rule, which I have extracted above. I cannot, therefore, take the above cited decision as an authority for every action by the Panchayat Samiti for eviction.