VINOD SOOD Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Estate Officer, Panjab University, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 27th December, 1975 ordered the eviction of the petitioner from Shop No. 54, Sector 14. Appeal against that order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide his order dated 27th February, 1976, Annexure P. 6. Both these orders have been impugned by the petitioner inter alia on the grounds that the premises in question were not public premises and that the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the 'Act') were not attracted to Panjab University, Chandigarh as it had not been established by the Central Act; that according to clause 5 of the lease contract, Annexure P.1, the Registrar was to have the right to get the shop vacated any time by serving one month's notice in writing only for an infringement of the agreement in part or whole and that in the notice Annexure P.2 served upon the petitioner by the Registrar no such infringement had been mentioned and identified; and that some other persons similarly situated had not been touched while the petitioner alone had been singled out and evicted and thus he had been discriminated against.

(2.) There is no merit in this petition. So far as the primary contention of the petitioner is regard to the application of the Act to the University and its properties is concerned, it may be observed that the matter is not res integra. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of M.R. Sharma and A.S. Bains, JJ. had an occasion to consider an identical question against the action of the Estate Officer of Panjab University, Chandigarh under the provisions of the said Act at the instance of an employee of the University who despite his retirement, continued to hold on to the residential premises. The following observations of the Bench are instructive :-

(3.) Before the filing of the present petition another Civil Writ Petition No. 3108 of 1973, Ram Chand v. Union of India and others raising an identical question of law stood admitted by S.P. Goyal, J. on 8th December, 1978 as has been mentioned in the body of the petition. This petition has since been decided and the learned Single Judge has held that the provisions of the Act were attracted to the respondent-University and its premises. That was a case of lease of canteen to Ram Chand, petitioner. In that case his lease was terminated and thereafter eviction proceedings were started against him. He was duly evicted by the Estate Officer and that order was upheld in appeal by the appellate authority.