TEHAL SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition was filed in 1994, whereby the Petitioner sought quashing of Lease Cancellation/Eviction Orders dated 12.1.1988/25.2.1988 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Respondent No.2 Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh as well as the Order dated 23.8.1988 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Respondent No.2, being Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh exercising the powers under the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short "the P.P.P. Act"), as also the Judgment dated 27.1.1994 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which, the Appeal under Section 9 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act filed by the original owner Sukhdev Singh was dismissed, with a further prayer for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the Official Respondents not to evict the Petitioner from the Booth No.1121-A, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh as he claims not to have committed any default in payment of rent, nor can be termed as unauthorized occupant and also not liable to be punished for the omission and commissions of the original Lessee Sukhdev Singh (Respondent No.4 since deceased).

(2.) The factual matrix of the matter and purport of the proceedings in this Petition uptill 1.7.2013 was summarized by the concerned Division Bench which had been dealing with, in the Zimni Sheet of that date, as below -

(3.) At that stage, on 1.7.2013 Ld. Counsel for the Respondents sought adjournment in order to seek instructions in view of the submissions made from the Petitioner's side to the effect that he be permitted to participate in the proposed auction so as to be able to purchase the property in auction, after which, he would be allowed to retain the same. However, on 29.7.2013, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents reported that the Respondents could not re-auction the Booth, unless it was got vacated. It is to be noted that much earlier, the original Lessee Respondent No.4 had died which fact is stated to have been intimated to the Court by the Petitioner by way of CM No.28369 of 2002 as mentioned in his affidavit filed along with CM No.3954 of 201 It was also mentioned in the said affidavit that the lessee, who had initially inducted the Petitioner as a tenant in the Booth, had subsequently bequeathed all his interests therein in his favour by way of a Will executed by him during his life time, and that the Petitioner as such after the death of said Respondent No.4 Sukhdev Singh, had approached the Estate Office for transfer of the property in his name, which was however, not done on account of pendency of the Writ Petition.