CHUNI LAL TILAK RAJ Vs. THE ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two connected writ petitions NPS. 2222 and 2454 of 1966. It was conceded by the counsel for the parties that the decision in one of them will govern the other as well. I would, therefore, give the facts of C.W. 2222 of 1966 only.

(2.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution had been filed by M/s. Chuni Lal Tilak Raj, challenging the legality of the order dated 7th October, 1966 passed by the Estate Officer, exercising the powers of Collector, Chandigarh.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after the shop had been auctioned and the purchaser had paid the price, the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to serve any notice on the Petitioner asking him to vacate the premises. The auction -purchaser had become the landlord of the Petitioner. The Estate Officer was not authorised under the law to evict the Petitioner in this arbitrary manner by using force for delivering the possession of the shop to the auction -purchaser. The Petitioner had acquired a valuable right to continue in peaceful possession of the premises and could not be evicted otherwise than by due process of law. The Petitioner was prepared to attorn to the auction -purchaser who had now become his landlord. According to the learned Counsel, it could not be said that the possession of the Petitioner was in any way unauthorised or illegal. Section 75 of the Act, under which the shop had been sold, did not authorise the Estate Officer to recover possession from the tenant who was in valid and legal occupation of the premises as a tenant under the previous landlord.