RATI RAM Vs. COMMISSIONER AMBALA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reply to the application for vacation of stay order dated 04.01.2002 filed in Court on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is advanced and taken up for final disposal.

(2.) In a petition for eviction filed under the Public Premises Act, the contention by the tenant was that he had been willing to pay the lease and the point of dispute was only the quantum of lease. The petitioner, who claimed as a tenant, was urging that the amount payable was Rs. 4,300/- per year, but it was held by the authorities below that he was liable to pay Rs. 9,040/- per acre which was the market rent. This amount also, the petitioner claimed that he had paid to the respondents. The challenge to the order which was passed is that when the Commissioner directed the lease to be paid, he was in error in affirming the decision of the Collector, who directed that he shall hand over the possession of the property after harvesting the wheat crop to the highest bidder for the year 2011-12. The petitioner's contention is that he is entitled to continue in possession, so long as the possession is not unauthorized. The learned counsel would contend that without a finding of the petitioner being in unauthorized occupation, an order of ejectment itself could not have been passed under the Public Premises Act.

(3.) It is an admitted case that the initial spell of lease which was granted to the petitioner has expired and he had been allowed to be in possession from time to time when the Municipal Committee was receiving the rent. It is an admitted fact again that the Municipal Committee refused to receive the rent and had resorted to an action for eviction under the Public Premises Act on the ground that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupation. If the quantum of lease was an issue for dispute and when the amount had been paid also, according to the petitioner, the receipt of amount itself must give rise to a situation of a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant and, therefore, the petitioner could not be said to be unlawful occupant for an ejectment.