PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against orders Annexures P. 3 dated 18-11-1999 and P. 4 dated 28-9-2001 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhatinda and Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda, exercising the powers of the Collector and Appellate . Authority, respectively under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short, theAct).

(2.) At the out-set, we may briefly notice the facts necessary for deciding the issues raised in the petition.

(3.) In the year 1991, the competent authority of the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, the Board) held an auction for leasing out the shop situated within the premises of Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant at Bhatinda. Respondent No. 4-Jagjiwan Kumar gave the highest offer of paying monthly rent of Rs. 735/-. His offer was accepted and the said shop was leased out to him for a period of one year from 2-5-1991 to 1-5-1992. On his request, the term of lease was extended for a period of one year ending in May, 1993. At the end of the extended term of lease, respondent No. 4 applied for further extension, but his request was declined and the shop was put to fresh auction. This time, Shri Sanjeev Kumar gave the highest bid and offered to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 1065/- per month. His bid was accepted by the concerned authority. However, possession of the shop could not be given to him because in the meanwhile, respondent No. 4 filed civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda and succeeded in persuading the learned Presiding Officer to grant ad interim injunction against his dispossession. The suit was finally decreed and the petitioner was restrained from dispossessing respondent No. 4 without adopting due process of law. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by District Judge, Bhatinda. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under S. 3 read with S, 5 of the Act for eviction of respondent No, 4 on the ground that he was Unauthorisedly occupying the public premises. Respondent No. 4 contested the application by asserting that even after the expiry of the extended term of lease, he was entitled to retain possession because he was prepared to pay the rent and in fact, the concerned authority had accepted the rent deposited by him from time to time.