Harpal Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Harpal Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an eviction order dated April 7, 2022, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo (respondent No. 3), and a subsequent appellate order dated September 22, 2022, by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda (respondent No. 2), which dismissed his appeal. The Nagar Panchayat Talwandi Sabo (respondent No. 1) had initiated eviction proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises & Land (Eviction and Recovery) Act, 1973, and the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Rules, 1974, seeking eviction from Shop No. 14 and recovery of rent amounting to Rs. 4,74,611/- from July 2015 to December 2018, along with GST and interest. The Nagar Panchayat claimed the petitioner had defaulted on rent payments as per a March 15, 2011, rent agreement, leading to unauthorized occupation. The petitioner had also failed to comply with a civil court order dated October 6, 2018, directing him to pay rent.

Held

The Court held that the eviction order and the appellate order were legal and valid. The concurrent findings of both authorities that the petitioner had not paid rent from July 2015 to December 2018, and that his tenancy stood terminated due to non-payment for over a year as per Clause 3 of the agreement, were not challenged by the petitioner. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the authorities' observations regarding his non-compliance with the civil court's order dated October 6, 2018, which had directed him to pay rent and allowed the Nagar Panchayat to seek eviction. Furthermore, the Court upheld the finding that the premises were 'Public Premises' under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1973 and that the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, was not applicable. The petitioner's offer to settle was deemed not bonafide, as he was unwilling to pay the entire amount due upfront and sought to pay in installments without interest. The Court found that the impugned orders had already given the petitioner the benefit of adjusting rent against the security amount, contrary to the agreement, and only the balance was to be recovered. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the eviction order dated April 7, 2022, and the appellate order dated September 22, 2022, passed under the Punjab Public Premises & Land (Eviction and Recovery) Act, 1973, are legal and valid, considering the petitioner's alleged non-payment of rent and unauthorized occupation of Shop No. 14 owned by the Nagar Panchayat Talwandi Sabo? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner expressed readiness to settle the matter, but stated he could only pay the outstanding amount in installments and without interest. He did not challenge the findings of the authorities regarding non-payment of rent or the applicability of the Act of 1973. Respondents' arguments: The respondents (Nagar Panchayat and State) argued that the petitioner had defaulted on rent payments from July 2015 to December 2018, rendering his occupation unauthorized. They relied on the terms of the rent agreement and the civil court's order directing payment of rent and permitting eviction upon non-compliance. They also contended that premises owned by a local authority are covered under the definition of 'Public Premises' in the Act of 1973 and are exempted from the Punjab Rent Act, 1995.