SATISH CHADHA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 1.9.2009, Annexure P.4 passed by respondent No. 6-Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, upholding the order of respondent No. 5 - Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jalandhar (1) dated 2.11.2007, Annexure P.3 whereby the petition filed by respondent No. 4-Zila Parishad, Jalandhar under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (in short, "the Act") for eviction and recovery of rent arrears from the petitioner has been allowed. Briefly the facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Respondent No. 4 filed a petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act against the petitioner alleging that Zila Parishad, Jalandhar was the owner of the disputed Shop No. 12, Zila Parishad Rest House No. 2 and the petitioner was inducted as a licensee on a monthly licence fee of Rs. 1,675/- vide agreement dated 6.2.2001 for a period of three years. The licence fee was payable by 7th of every month and in case of failure of the petitioner to pay the licence fee for three consecutive months, he was liable to be evicted from the disputed shop as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It was further mentioned in that petition that the petitioner had not paid the licence fee and a sum of Rs. 16,796/- excluding penalty etc. was recoverable from the petitioner. Various notices were issued to the petitioner to deposit the due money but the petitioner failed to deposit the same. According to respondent No. 4, the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 22,951/- till August 2004 and respondent No. 4 was entitled to recovery 20 times of the licence fee amounting to Rs. 4,59,020/- (Rs. 22,951/- x 20). The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement denying the allegations. Vide order dated 2.11.2007, Annexure P.3, the petition was allowed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar vide order dated 1.9.2009, Annexure P.4 impugned herein. Hence this petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 6287 of 2011 (Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others,) Annexure P.14, whereby the petitioners were directed to pay five months' license fee as amount payable to retain the possession. The provision for payment of 20 times the license fee was held to be oppressive. The orders of eviction were set aside and the petitioners were allowed to continue on their paying license fee upto the previous license period and also paying five times the monthly license as a recompense for the failure to obtain renewal and 10% increase from the respective dates when the license period expired. All the arrears were directed to be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of the order and in case of failure, the respondents were given liberty to secure possession in accordance with law. Learned State counsel was unable to controvert the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of in same terms.