NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS PRIVATE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question which the Full Bench is required to decide is whether the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery)Act (31 of 1959) contravene Articles 14 and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. The facts of the case may be briefly narrated,

(2.) THE State of Punjab, after verbal settlement of the terms, agreed to lease its property known as the Mount View Hotel, Chandigarh, comprising of the main building and other appertaining building including kitchen, pantries, stores, garages, lanes, etc. , to the first petitioner, the Northern India Caterers (Private)Ltd. The rent was fixed at Rs. 72,000/-per year but later on reduced to Rs. 50,000/- per year. The possession was delivered to the petitioners on 24th september, 1953, and it is from this date that the lease became operative. No deed of lease was drawn up or executed till 21st May, 1959. According to the terms of the deed of lease, the petitioners were entitled to remain in occupation of the premises for six years commencing from 24th September, 1953, the date of petitioners' entry on the premises. The petitioners maintained that they had made an initial investment of over Rs. 1,50,000/-in equipping the Hotel with cutlery, crockery, glassware, utensils, linen, etc. According to the petitioners' contention, an option was given to them though it was not reduced to writing, to extend the lease to them for another period of six years. This contention of the petitioners has been denied by the State of Punjab who maintained that the date of expiration of the lease was 24th September, 1959, without any writing having been given to the petitioners to extend the period. According to the Punjab State, the petitioners were given an option to purchase the premises on payment of Rs. 12,00,000/-and this was communicated to them on 27th August, 1959, (vide annexure vii ). In order to enable the petitioners to make up their mind, the Estate Officer, capital project, respondent No. 2, was intimated by the Government to extend the period of the lease from the date of expiration on 24th September, 1959 to 31st december, 1959. The offer made to the petitioners to purchase the premises on payment of Rs. 12,00,000/-remained open for acceptance up to 15th October, 1959. The petitioners were required to vacate the building before the morning of 1st January, 1960. On 6th November, 1959, the petitioners were informed that the offer which the Government had made to them for purchasing the premises for rs. 12,00,000/- stood withdrawn and that the premises be vacated by 31st december, 1959, and the arrears due to the Government may be cleared by that date (vide annexure ix ). The second petitioner, who is the chairman of the board of directors of the Northern India Caterers (Private) Limited, addressed a letter to shri B. B. Vohra, Secretary to Government Punjab, Capital Project, Chandigarh, stating that the price of the Mount View Hotel according to his estimate ought not to exceed Rs. 7,57,483/- and there was no basis for demanding Rs. 12,00,000/ -. The Secretary to Government Punjab, Capital Project, wrote back to say that the premises must be vacated by 31st December, 1959, and that the petitioners' occupation after that date would be deemed illegal and unauthorised (vide annexure xii ). As the parties have not been ad idem on the question of option to extend the lease, this petition has been argued on the basis that the lease had expired on 31st December, 1959, and that the first petitioner has continued in possession as a tenant holding over.

(3.) ON 1st January 1960, the Estate Officer and Collector, Capital Project, chandigarh, respondent No. 2, served the second petitioner with a notice alleging that the occupation of the premises had become unauthorised after 31st december, 1959, and the petitioners were, therefore, required under Section 4 of punjab Act 31 of 1959 to show cause on or before 11th day of January, I960, as to why an order of eviction from the public premises in question be not made against the petitioners.