LAWS(P&H)-2014-3-398

MEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On March 20, 2014
MEHAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 1743 of 2013, 1763 of 2013, LPA No. 1892 of 2013 and 1967 of 2013. However, for the facility, the facts are taken from LPA No. 1743 of 2013.

(2.) THE aforesaid LPAs are directed against an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 3.5.2013, whereby the Writ Petition Nos. 6476 of 1987; 6960 of 1987 and 8018 of 1987 filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 9.7.1984 (Annexure P.10) passed by the Collector, exercising the powers under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') and the order in appeal dated 12.8.1987 (Annexure P.11) passed by the Commissioner, affirming the order of Collector, remained unsuccessful. The brief facts leading to the present appeals may be stated.

(3.) THE Faridkot House Chaura Bazaar, Ludhiana belonging to the erstwhile State of Faridkot and vesting with the Pepsu on formation of Pepsu, was leased out to late Shri Jhanda Singh, father of respondent No.1 before the Collector, vide Lease Deed dated 30.2.1949. The lease period expired on 31.3.1950, but the lessee continued to be in possession. The tenancy was terminated with effect from 31.3.1964 after serving a notice dated 16.3.1964. An Application under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act was filed on 17.10.1975 against Daljit Singh, legal heir of the deceased Jhanda Singh and 34 occupants (Some of them are in appeal before this Court), the sub tenants inducted by Jhanda Singh. Initially an order of eviction was passed by the Collector, Ludhiana on 17.2.1981, but the said order was set aside by the Commissioner on 15.2.1982 and the matter remanded to the learned Collector to decide the matter afresh keeping in view the observations made therein. It is thereafter, the Collector passed an order of eviction on 9.7.1984, which was affirmed vide order passed by the Commissioner on 12.8.1987. Both the orders were not interfered with by the learned Single Judge. Still aggrieved, the present appeals have been preferred by some of the occupants.