PARMANAND Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Batch of 10 cases bearing CWP Nos.17043 to 17046, 17055 and 17059 to 17063 of 2013 is being disposed of by this common order as the facts and law involved therein are identical. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No. 17043 of 2013.

(2.) In short, respondent No.3 filed a petition under Section 4 of the Punjab Religious Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 [for short 'the Act'] for seeking eviction of petitioner from the shop in dispute belonging to the Arya Samaj Mandir. On the pleading of the parties, issues were framed and after taking evidence the Collector, Patiala vide his order dated 25.9.2012 passed the order of eviction. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of statutory appeal which has also been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala on 26.2.2013.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, it is submitted that one of the issues before the Collector was as to whether the possession of the petitioner from June 2010 is unauthorized and he is liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 3(b) of the Act to contend that the petitioner would be called an unauthorized occupant if the lease in his favour has been determined or cancelled in accordance with the terms of the lease deed. It is argued that since the petitioner has been paying rent to the respondents and there is no evidence brought on record as to when his lease has been determined or cancelled in terms of the lease deed, he cannot be considered to be in unauthorized occupation as such the petition filed against him under Section 4 of the Act was not maintainable.