MANGAL RAM Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mangal Ram filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated April 4, 1977, by which his petition (C.W.P. No. 7616/1976 MANGAL RAM v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH, 1977 PunLJ 316 was dismissed with costs.

(2.) The appellant has been in occupation of the shop site No. 24-H in Bajwara Market, Chandigarh. He was given a registered notice which was issued from the Estate Officer on September 13, 1975, to the effect that the lease of his Shop No. 24-H has been cancelled and that he should vacate the premises within a month. Against the aforesaid notice and the subsequent proceedings which were taken in pursuance of that notice, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6479 of 1975, which was dismissed by Harbans Lal, J. on 14th May, 1976. Letters Patent Appeal and special leave petition in the Supreme Court also met the same fate. Thereafter, another show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 28th May, 1976, copy annexure "P-2" to the petition, requiring him to show-cause why he should not be evicted from the shop site in dispute. The appellant filed a reply, in which various objections were raised. The Estate officer considered the objections but did not find any merit and rejected the same. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Estate Officer, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Punjab Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the District Judge, Chandigarh. The said appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 27th October, 1976. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Estate Officer and the learned Additional District Judge, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7616 of 1976 MANGAL RAM v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH, 1977 PunLJ 316 which as earlier observed, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.

(3.) Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, at the time of the hearing of the appeal, raised the following two contentions :-