WAZIR KAUR Vs. COMMISSIONER, JULLUNDUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, dated December 18, 1979 - Annexure P-10.

(2.) Briefly put, Municipal Committee, Jalandhar, (now Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar) held an auction for leasing out 65 Kanals, 1 Marla of land, detailed in para 2 of the writ petition, situate in village Maqsudpur, tehsil and district Jalandhar. The petitioner was the highest bidder and the land was leased at a yearly rent of Rs. 5000/- in her favour. She deposited Rs. 3000/-, i.e., Rs. 500/- as security and an amount of Rs. 2500/- equivalent to half the amount of rent for the year and a patta for a period of one year, i.e., from 16th of June, 1969 to 15th of June, 1970 was duly executed which is Annexure P-6. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 did not deliver the physical possession of the land leased out to her which impelled her to address letters on three different dates, namely, June 12, 1969, June 17, 1969 and the last in July, 1969. Copies of these letters are Annexure P-2, P-2/A and P-2B. It is further averred that, in fact, the land subject matter of the lease-deed was in possession of Dhanbir Singh and Teja Singh sons of Ajaib Singh who were also shown to be in cultivating possession in copies of khasra girdawari. Similarly, the petitioner addressed another communication on August 28, 1969 to the Administrator, Jalandhar Municipality. In the writ petition, reference has also been made to the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and order of attachment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The crux of the averments made by the petitioner is to the effect that despite the lease deed duly executed by her pursuant to the acceptance of her bid held in 1969, she had not been in possession of the property and this way the respondent-Municipal Committee had no right to initiate proceedings for eviction of the petitioner in terms of the Punjab Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act. Since the petitioner had neither been paying the lease amount nor giving up possession, the proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act were initiated for eviction of the petitioner and for recovery of Rs. 17,000/- on account of arrears of rent and damages before the Collector, Jalandhar. The Collector dismissed the application vide order dated 31.8.1978 (P-9) holding that it has not been proved that the Municipal Committee has any right over the land in dispute or that the same falls within the definition of 'public premises' as per provision of Section 2(e) of the Punjab Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act-Annexure P-9. The Commissioner, however, vide order dated December 18, 1979, Annexure P-10, reversed the order of the Collector and so passed an order of eviction against the petitioner as well as awarded damages to the Municipal Committee against the petitioner holding her to be an authorised occupant. This order which is under challenge.

(3.) In the absence of the petitioner or her counsel, I have perused the documents placed on record including the impugned order with the able assistance of the counsel for the respondents. Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioner to the effect that she was never put in possession of the land in dispute and so she is neither liable to be evicted nor liable for damages. This assertion of the petitioner is without any foundation. A bare perusal of Annexure P-1 patta executed for one year, i.e., from 16.6.1969 to 15.6.1970, clearly blies the stand of the petitioner. This pattanama has been executed under Rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and Section 9(2)(vi) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1973. Besides other stipulations as contained in Annexure P-1, the petitioner specifically agreed to vacate the land on the lapse of the period which itself would suggest that she had been put in possession being the highest bidder who consequently executed pattanama Annexure P-1. Even otherwise, the stand of the petitioner stands falsified by her own averment as contained in letter dated 28.8.1969 addressed to the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Jalandhar, Annexure P-3, which reads as, "an area of 65 kanals, I Maria was leased out to me in auction by the Municipality, Jullundur, out of which the possession of an area of about 3 acres has been taken by me so far .... ............ "Even a reference to the compromise arrived at between Sh. Dhanbir Singh and the petitioner Annexure P6. 55 Kanals, 16 Maria out of the total land measuring 65 Kanals, 1 Maria was given to Gurbux Singh - husband of the petitioner and only 9 Kanals, 5 Marlas of land was left with Dhanbir Singh. These factual aspects were taken into consideration by the Commissioner while passing order Annexure P-10. The petitioner thus cannot take any benefit on the basis of Annexure P6 vide which possession of 55 Kanals, 16 Marlas of land was held to be that of Gurbux Singh, whereas 9 Kanals, 5 Marlas was left with the tenant. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner was inducted as a lessee by the Municipal Committee, Jalandhar and so is not permitted to deny the title of her landlord. The apex Court in judgment in case reported as Naqubai Ammal v. Shama Rao, 1956 AIR(SC) 593 held as under :-