HARNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Harnam Singh Shan praying for a writ of prohibition, certiorari or any other appropriate order against the Punjab State and the District Magistrate of Simla requiring them not to interfere with the petitioner's occupation of a portion of house No. 135, Bemloe view.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the Punjab State requisitioned the upper flat of the house in dispute in November 1957. The house was allotted partly to the petitioner Harnam Singh Shan and partly to Prahlad Singh a clerk in the office of the Director of Public Instruction, Simla. On 18-12-1951 an order derequisitioning the house was passed. Both the occupants, however, continued to remain in possession and it was understood that the landlord had leased out the entire requisitioned premises to Prahlad Singh. The allegation of the petitioner is that Prahlad Singh allowed the petitioner to remain in possession until the end of February 1952. After that the petitioner was to execute an agreement which would further extend his occupation of the premises. There is nothing on the record to show Wat the landlord executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner or that Prahlad Singh sublet any portion of the premises to the petitioner. Since prahlad Singh wanted to take possession of the entire house and since the petitioner was not prepared to leave the portion in his occupation, Prahlad Singh sought the help of the government. The Punjab Government thereupon pro-nosed to take steps to eject the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance is that the Punjab Government has no right to eject him from these premises.

(3.) THE argument of Mr. Kapur who appears on behalf of the petitioner is briefly this. The petitioner was allowed to stay in these premises up to the end of February 1952. The premises were derequisitioned on 18-12-1951, and the Punjab Government took no steps at that time to deliver vacant possession to the landlord and it is now too late to do so. The petitioner having been allowed to remain in occupation of the premises beyond the date upon which the premises were derequisitioned the Punjab Government cannot now eject him and therefore the steps which the Punjab Government propose to take are in excess of their authority arid unlawful to that extent.