Vinod Sood vs Panjab University and others

D.S. Tewatia, J. (Oral)

The Estate Officer, Panjab University, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 27th December, 1975 ordered the eviction of the petitioner from Shop No. 54, Sector 14. Appeal against that order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide his order dated 27th February, 1976, Annexure P. 6. Both these orders have been impugned by the petitioner inter alia on the grounds that the premises in question were not public premises and that the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the `Act'') were not attracted to Panjab University, Chandigarh as it had not been established by the Central Act; that according to clause 5 of the lease contract, Annexure P.1, the Registrar was to have the right to get the shop vacated any time by serving one month''s notice in writing only for an infringement of the agreement in part or whole and that in the notice Annexure P.2 served upon the petitioner by the Registrar no such infringement had been mentioned and identified; and that some other persons similarly situated had not been touched while the petitioner alone had been singled out and evicted and thus he had been discriminated against.

There is no merit in this petition. So far as the primary contention of the petitioner is regard to the application of the Act to the University and its properties is concerned, it may be observed that the matter is not res integra. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of M.R. Sharma and A.S. Bains, JJ. had an occasion to consider an identical question against the action of the Estate Officer of Panjab University, Chandigarh under the provisions of the said Act at the instance of an employee of the University who despite his retirement, continued to hold on to the residential premises. The following observations of the Bench are instructive :

"The aforementioned consideration apart, the University is admittedly a corporation and by virtue of section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, it has to function under the directions issued by the Central Government from time to time. Consequently, it has to be held that premises in dispute belong to a Corporation which is controlled by the Central Government. In this view of the matter, the provisions of the Act would be applicable to the facts of the case and the order passed by the Estate Officer as affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh in appeal would have to be affirmed."

Before the filing of the present petition another Civil Writ Petition No. 3108 of 1973, Ram Chand v. Union of India and others raising an identical question of law stood admitted by S.P. Goyal, J. on 8th December, 1978 as has been mentioned in the body of the petition. This petition has since been decided and the learned Single Judge has held that the provisions of the Act were attracted to the respondentUniversity and its premises. That was a case of lease of canteen to Ram Chand, petitioner. In that case his lease was terminated and thereafter eviction proceedings were started against him. He was duly evicted by the Estate Officer and that order was upheld in appeal by the appellate authority.

The ground urged before the learned Single Judge was that the premises in dispute were not covered by the Public Premises Act as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Act. It was canvassed that the said expression covered premises which were owned by any Corporation established by the Central Government. It was stressed that Panjab University had not been established under the Central Act nor was it owned and controlled by the Central Government. The learned Single Judge repelled the said contention with the following observations:

"It is not disputed that the Panjab University was established under the East Panjab University Act, 1947. The State of Punjab was, however, reorganised in the year 1966 and by virtue of Section 72(1) of the Reorganisation Act, this University was allowed to function as interState body corporate and the Central Government was authorised to issue such direction as it may deem fit from time to time. By virtue of subclause (2) of Section 72 the Central Government was authorised to issue a direction that any law by which the said body corporate is government shall in its application to that body corporate, have effect, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in this direction. In exercise of the said powers, the Central Government have amended the provisions of the East Punjab University Act from time to time. It is, therefore, evident that the University has continued to function because of the provisions of a Central Act, namely, the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and the provisions of the East Punjab University Act, are applicable because of the directions issued under subsection (2) of Section 72 of the Reorganisation Act. These facts would show that the East Punjab University Act is deemed to have been adopted by the Central Government and the Punjab University is being run under a Central Act.''

That the Division Bench decision is binding upon me, apart I with respect, also concur in the view that has been taken by the Division Bench and followed by the learned Single Judge.

As regards the assertion that the notice served by the Registrar upon the petitioner did not give reason that clause of the lease deed envisages, it may be observed that the same relates to a situation where the current tenancy is terminated but such is not the case here. In the present case the lease deed had not been renewed and the notice was merely to inform him that his lease had expired and that he was in unauthorised occupation and required him to deliver the vacant possession of the premises within the stipulated period.

As for the discrimination part, it may be observed that it is not the petitioner''s case anywhere in the petition that the lease of other lessees had also expired as was the case with the petitioner and yet they were not sought to be evicted. It is not even his case that like others, he had applied to have the lease renewed and in his case renewal was denied while in other cases the lease was renewed.

For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.