LAWS(P&H)-1975-9-4

TILAK RAJ Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

Decided On September 22, 1975
TILAK RAJ Appellant
V/S
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tilak Raj petitioner took on lease a tea-stall located at bus-stand in Sector 17, Chandigarh, vide registered lease-deed for two years effective from 14-3 1972 to 13-3-1974 at the rate of Rs. 4,800/- per mensem. The lease-deed envisaged the extension of the lease period by one year in the event of the satisfaction of the Chandigarh Administration about the performance and conduct of the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the lessee. Before the expiry of his aforesaid lease period, he applied to the Chandigarh Administration for the extension of the lease which request was declined vide order dated 6-3-1974. The lessee, on the strength of a clause in the lease-deed for reference of any dispute arising thereunder to the arbitrator, got a reference made to the arbitrator to decide the dispute regarding the extension of the lease period. The Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, vide his award dated 22-6-1974, held that the lessee was not entitled to the extension of the lease. When the aforesaid award was sought to be made rule of the Court by the Chandigarh Administration, respondent No. 1, the lessee raised objections thereto. His objections were still pending decision in the Civil Court when on 285- 1975 respondent No. 3, Estate Officer. Union Territory, Chandigarh, served upon the lessee a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Central Act, requiring him to vacate the premises. The lessee has impugned the aforesaid notice and the action of the Chandigarh Administration in the present writ petition, primarily, on four grounds:

(2.) The relevant provisions in the Punjab Act at this stage deserve to be noticed. They read:

(3.) Referring to the expression 'belonging to ..... the State Government' occurring in the definition of the term 'Public Premises', Mr. Dhingra urged that by virtue of the provision of Sections 4 and 7 of the Reorganisation Act, read with the definition of 'State', in Section 3, Clause (58), of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Union Territory of Chandigarh for the purposes of the application of the Punjab Act shall have to be construed as 'State' in the event of the necessary adaptation to the Punjab Act having not been carried out by the authority competent as envisaged in Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act. The learned counsel stressed that the provision of Section 90 of the Reorganisation Act authorises the Court to so read the said Act as if the requisite adaptations had been carried out in order to apply the laws made applicable by the provision of Section 88 of the Reorganisation Act.