M/s Mohan Lal Ghansham Dass vs The Chandigarh Administration and others

B.S. Dhillon and S.S. Sidhu, JJ.—This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3786 and 4219 of 1978, because the points of law involved in these petitions are common. The said petitions are being disposed of after issuing notice of motion to She respondents.

Respondent No. 4 Chuni Lal in Civil Writ No. 3786 of 1978 and respondent No. 4 in Civil Writ No. 4219 of 1978 were allotted the sites in dispute. They raised construction over these sites. The Estate officer issued notices to the said owners and also consequently to the petitioners who were tenants of the sites in question, that they having violated the conditions of allotment, the sites in question were likely to be resumed. After the notices were issued, the resumption order was passed by the Estate Officer against which appeals wore filed by the owners, which were also dismissed. The revision petitions before the Chief Commissioner arc pending.

The petitioners, who are the tenants of the premises in dispute, were proceeded against by the authorities for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. After due notices were given to the petitioners, orders were passed by the competent authority ordering their eviction. The petitioners filed appeals before the District Judge, Chandigarh. These appeals have also been dismissed.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection has been taken that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as the Petitioners are guilty of misstating the facts inasmuch as the petitioners alleged in the petitions that in appeals filed against the resumption order stay of proceedings were ordered, but in fact no such stay order was passed. It has further been contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners cannot be held to be authorized occupants as the sites have been resumed by the Estate Officer and thus their eviction has been ordered in accordance with law. It has been contended that since the revision petitions filed by the landlords are pending before the Chief Commissioner, these writ petitions are premature and the same may be dismissed as such.

It has been contended by Mr. G.C. Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the most the sites in question have been resumed and there is no provision in law to resume the super structure over the sites in question and thus the authorities are not entitled to take possession of the super structure.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that this contention which has been raised on behalf of the tenants cannot be upheld for the simple reason that the sites in question have been resumed the super structure admittedly belongs to the landlords and it is for them to see as to what arrangement they have to make with the Chandigarh Administration regarding super structure Moreover, the revision petitions are pending with the Chief Commissioner and it was for the landlords to have applied for stay of dispossession but admittedly no such application has been, filed. It is no doubt true that the petitioners being the tenants will he thrown out from the premises, but we have already observed that they have no right to continue in possession as the landlords have not taken any stay order from the Chief Commissioner before whom the revision petitions are pending.

It was also brought to our notice by Mr. Sri Chand Goyal, the learned counsel for the landlord, that in Civil Writ No 3786, the petitioners have not paid the rent for the last more than 15 months and that the arrears have accumulated to Rs. 18.700/-.

For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that in view of the orders passed by the authorities below and in view of the order of the District Judge, it is not open to us to conclude that the eviction of the petitioners is being ordered unauthorised. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.