HARI CHAND AGGARWAL Vs. BATALA ENGINEERING CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution pleading that he is carrying on at Batala the business of commission agent in machines, mainly chaff-cutters, in the shop belonging to the Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. , (Respondent No. 1) for the last ten years as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ -. The petitioner has established himself in the same business and pays income-tax and profession tax, having also installed a telephone in the shop for his business. Respondent No. 1 filed an application on 8-11964 for the petitioner's ejectment from the said shop in the Court of the Rent Controller, Batala. The petitioner had put in his written statement and had also deposited the rent in accordance with law before the first date of hearing. The proceedings are still pending. Feeling weakness of his application, respondent No. 1, the Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. , managed to get a letter issued by the Labour Commissioner to the Additional District Magistrate (respondent No. 2 in this Court) for getting the shop in question requisitioned and Shri R. C. Aggarwal, Additional District Magistrate, has accordingly issued a requisitioning order, dated 24-31964 purporting to be under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, stating that the shop in question is required for setting up a Cooperative Consumers Stores, and the petitioner has been directed to surrender and deliver possession of the shop to the Manager, Cooperative Consumers Stores, Batala. The petitioner avers that he has invested about Rs. 50,000/-in this business of agricultural implements and machines and that all the dealings are being done in this shop. As the petitioner is not pushing the sale of articles manufactured by respondent No. 1, attempt is being made to evict the petitioner from the shop in question and it is with this object that the authorities concerned have been moved for getting the shop requisitioned. According to the petitioner the mala fides of the requisition are apparent from these circumstances.

(2.) THE writ petition was admitted on 27-4-1964 and notice for stay was given for the following week. The case was then adjourned from time to time for the respondents to file their written statements. The written statement by the Additional District Magistrate is dated 10-81964 and that of the Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. , 3-8-1964. The written statement by the Additional District Magistrate states that the shop in question had been requisitioned on the request of the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, for setting up the Co-operative Consumers Stores under the provision of Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, read with notification No. GSR 1716 of 1962 and 662-ASI64/ 3036, dated 23-1-1964. Though the written statement and affidavit expressly recite that these notifications have been annexed as Rule l and Rule 2, there are no such annexures, but as ordered by me in a separate order on 14-8-1964, one of the notifications is annexed to the writ petition and the other is published in the Punjab Gazette with the result that I did not consider it necessary to adjourn the case for this purpose. Reverting to the written statement of the Additional District Magistrate, he has pleaded that he had been duly authorised by the Punjab Government to exercise the powers of the District Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code and under any other law for the time being in force vide notification Rule 2, dated 23-1-1964. He has, however, stated in paragraph 8 (vi) of the reply that although the move had been made by the Labour Commissioner, respondent No. 4, it was the answering respondent who carefully considered the matter and formed the opinion and was satisfied that it was a fit case for taking action under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act. It has, however, been admitted that the shop in question had been requisitioned for the period required for running the Co-operative Consumers Stores and would be derequisitioned when no longer required for that purpose. The period of requisitioning, according to the reply, is not required to be specified in the requisitioning order under Section 29 (3), Defence of India Act, which is an emergency provision.

(3.) THE written statement by the Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 1, admits the pendency of the eviction proceedings in respect of the shop in question. It has been pleaded in paragraph 9 of the written statement that the petitioner has got his own double storeyed shop on the Railway Road, Batala, in which he can easily carry on his business and in paragraph 10, it has been averred that the answering respondent has some workers quarters and not shops as suggested by the petitioner and they are being occupied by the workers and servants of the company. It appears that on 4-5-1964, an additional affidavit was placed on the file by the petitioner and on 4-8-1964, a further affidavit was placed on the file by the petitioner. At this stage, I must point out that this was contrary to Rule 8 Chap 4-F (b), Part II (Civil), Vol. V, High Court Rules and Orders, as it has not been done with the leave of the Court, and it may be stated for the guidance of the office that further affidavits contrary to this rule should not be accepted as a matter of course and that leave of the Court must be obtained before further affidavit can be placed on the record.