V.K SHARMA Vs. M.C.SHIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: (i) Annexure P -18, order dated 24.5.2002, Annexure P -16, order dated 19.4.2000 may kindly be quashed. (ii) Respondents may kindly be directed to produce the record. (iii) Costs of this petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, (iv) Any other writ, order or direction as this Honble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to filing of this petition are that Municipal Corporation, Shimla, published an auction notice for the auction, by way of lease, of a newly constructed "Ice Cream Parlour8 situated near Daulat Singh Park at The Ridge, Shimla, The auction notice clearly stated that the lease period would be three years. Undoubtedly, pursuant to the auction notice, the petitioner was leased the Ice Cream Parlour and the period of such lease was three years. The lease deed was executed on March 31, 1989 and the period of lease commenced from March 1, 1989. It is the admitted case of the petitioner as well as parties that beyond 1992, the lease was never extended. It is also the admitted case of the petitioner that as on the date of passing of the orders, initially by the Collector and later only the Commissioner, the lease deed stood expired.

(3.) In the aforesaid background, the Collector, exercising the powers in terms of Section 5 of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 1971 Act) passed an order, inter alia, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the property in question by holding that the petitioner had violated the agreed terms and conditions of the lease deed knowingly and willingly and also by holding that he was an unauthorized occupant of the Ice Cream Parlour which is a public premises belonging to Municipal Corporation, Shimla. The Collector also held that the petitioner had not paid the requisite rent. Ultimately, the Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of rupees 5,11,047/ -alongwith interest at the rate of 18% till the amount was paid. He also held that if the petitioner had deposited any security amount at the time of execution of the lease deed or before taking the possession, this also would stand forfeited in favour of the Corporation. Holding the petitioner ultimately an unauthorized occupant, the Collector ordered that he be evicted from the premises in questions in terms of Section 5 (1) of 1971 Act by May 18,2000.