PAUL ALIAS MAHABIR SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the demise premises was taken on lease from the Gram Panchayat on 1.7.1988, subject to payment of Rs. 80/ - per month. Later on, the Municipal Committee was substituted and it become the owner/leaser of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that since the premises was a public premises when it was taken on lease, consequently in terms of Section 3 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972), the petitioner has not become un -authorised occupant and cannot be ejected under the Act of 1972.

(2.) IT would be expedient to notice the provisions of Sections 2(e), 3(a) and 3(c)(ii), which runs respectively as under: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel in order to support his contention relied upon , 1972 P.L.R. 592 Raj Kumar Devindra Singh and Anr. v. The State of Punjab and Ors., 1. The precedent cited is not pari materia with the facts of the present case, in as much as in the case cited the person was inducted in the premises when the premises was not a public premises, but in the case in hand the premises was owned by the Gram Panchayat and later on it was handed over to the Municipal Committee.