CHAMANLAL Vs. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question that falls for determination in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur (Annexures "P-4" and "P-5"), is whether a suit is barred by Section 15 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The material facts of the case are within a short compass and may be briefly set out. Shri Madan Lal Khanna (respondent No. 4) purchased from Shri Naval Kishore, a shop situated in Chowk Sudan, Jullundur City, on 19.11.1973, vide registered deed (Annexure P-1). Towards the southern side of that shop in the public street, an area as detailed in the plan (Annexure R-3/3) was in the occupation of the petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as licenees on payment of Teh Bazari. This Teh Bazari was terminated by the order of Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, Jullundur on 7.5.1975. According to the record of the Municipal Committee, a Thara abutting the southern side of the shop was an enforcement into the public street. Teh Bazari having been cancelled, the Executive Officer initiated proceedings against the petitioners and the said respondents by moving an application (Annexure R-3/1) for their eviction from the public street as part of public premises under the Act. The petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 made statements before the Sub-Divisional Officer, (Civil), exercising the powers of Collector, undertaking to vacate the premises in question within a month. On the basis of these statements, the Collector passed eviction order, on 25.8.77 (Annexure R-3/2). The petitioners vacated a part of the premises but whole of the enforcement was not cleared. In the meantime, the petitioners brought a suit for permanent injunction and obtained ad interim injunction order (Annexure P-2) by alleging that the encroachment of Thara and the Khokha was beyond the area sought to be vacated by the Authorities under the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that none of these allegations was agitated in the written statement filed before the Authorities contained at page 19 of the file. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, exercising the powers of Collector, while dismissing the application vide order Annexure P-4 came to the conclusion that there was no mention of Thara in the siteplan (Annexure R-3/3) attached to the application (Annexure R-1/1); nor the stay order contained any mention of the eviction order passed by the Collector on 25.8.1977. The Collector, however, directed that before demolishing the structure, the Executive Officer may carry out the measurements at the site in accordance with the site plan (Annexure R-3/3). The petitioners challenged the order Annexure P-4 by filing an appeal in the Court of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur. The Commissioner while dismissing the appeal vide order Annexure P-5, observed that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred under Section 15 of the Act. These two orders are challenged in the present petition.

(3.) Shri Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners, contends that the Authorities were in error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners' suit was incompetent because he argues that they have misguided the effect of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. It is contended that the mere fact that a special statute provides for certain remedies may not by itself necessarily exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to deal with a case brought before it in respect of some of the matters covered by the special statute. The contentions of the learned counsel though appear to be ingenious do not, on consideration of the matter, hold water. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions in Union of India through General Manager North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur V. Shyam Lal,1968 66 AllLJ 494 Hira Singh and another V. Darbara Singh and others,1964 AIR(P&H) 447 and Gram Panchayat of village Azizpur Kalan V. Mehar Singh,1962 PunLR 282. In these authorities, question of title was involved and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to decide such matters was not specifically barred. These cases have no application to the facts of the present case. There is no question of title involved in the instant case. The petitioners were admittedly lessees on payment of Teh Bazari which stood terminated by the order of the Executive Officer on 7.5.1975. The present suit arose directly out of a proceeding under the Act and the suit was specifically barred under Section 15 of the Act. On behalf of the petitioners, precious little has been said for taking the present case out of this statutory bar.