LAWS(P&H)-2019-3-460

SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Decided On March 07, 2019
SUKHWINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dtd. 23/4/2015 passed by learned Single Judge.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that shop bearing No. 1 situated at Chatiwind Gate, Amritsar had been rented out to him by Municipal Corporation, Amritsar-respondent No. 3 wherein he had been carrying on his business in this shop for which he had been regularly paying the rent and other ancillary charges to Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. An application was moved by respondent No. 3 under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act') before Deputy Director, Urban Local Bodies, Amritsar exercising powers of Collector under the Act for eviction of the appellant on the ground that he had surrendered the possession of the shop to unauthorised occupiers namely Surinder Cycle Works and Surinder Singh without prior permission of the competent authority and had also made additions and alterations without the prior permission of the Municipal Corporation. Deputy Director-cum-Collector vide order dtd. 12/1/2014 allowed the application filed by respondent No. 3 and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the property in dispute to the Corporation within a period of 30 days. The appellant against the said order preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner vide order dtd. 16/9/2014 upheld the order passed by the Collector and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. It is in this background that the appellant approached this Court by way of filing CWP No. 20382 of 2014.

(3.) Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petition by observing that no ground for interference was made out in view of the concurrent findings of fact, which had been recorded by the authorities below and the fact that the appellant had handed over the possession of shop in dispute to the unauthorised occupants namely Surinder Cycle Works and Surinder Singh.