JUDGMENT
M.S. Liberhan, J.
1. The only question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the demise premises was taken on lease from the Gram Panchayat on 1.7.1988, subject to payment of Rs. 80/- per month. Later on, the Municipal Committee was substituted and it become the owner/leaser of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that since the premises was a public premises when it was taken on lease, consequently in terms of Section 3 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972), the petitioner has not become un-authorised occupant and cannot be ejected under the Act of 1972.
2. It would be expedient to notice the provisions of Sections 2(e), 3(a) and 3(c)(ii), which runs respectively as under:-
2(e) “Public premises” means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government, or requisitioned by the competent authority under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable. Property Act, 1953 and includes any premises belonging to any local authority, District Soldiers Sailors and Air-Board) (or any University established by law).
Section 3(a)
“Unauthorised occupation of Public Premises-for the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any public premises:-
(a) where he has, whether before after the commencement of this Act entered into possession thereof otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant; or
3(c)(ii)
Otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such public premises.
3. Reading of the sections categorically spells out that in case the petitioner has taken the demise premises while they were squarely covered by the definition of Public Premises Act and latter it continued to be public premises, and having failed to comply with the terms, express or implied, of the lease, would be deemed to be in un-authorised possession. Resultantly, his authorised possession runs into un-authorised possession in the eventuality of violation of term of the lease. Concedingly, as accepted by the learned counsel for the parties, the property was leased out to the petitioner on monthly rent which the petitioner failed to pay some times for two years and some times for more period. In our considered view non-payment of rent as per the lease deed, makes the petitioner un-authorised occupant of the Public Premises. We may hasten to add that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the Public Premises as the demise premises was owned by the Gram Panchayat at the time the Petitioner was put in possession and it continued to be public premises as the same was transferred by the Gram Panchayat to Municipal Committee.
4. Learned counsel in order to support his contention relied upon,1 1972 P.L.J. 592 Raj Kumar Devindra Singh and Anr. v. The State of Punjab and Ors., 1. The precedent cited is not para materia with the facts of the present case, in as much as in the case cited the person was inducted in the premises when the premises was not a public premises, but in the case in hand the premises was owned by the Gram Panchayat and lateron it was handed over to the Municipal Committee.
5. In view of the conclusion arrived at by us that the petitioner having failed to pay the rent of the demise premises according to the lease, has violated the condition of the lease and thus his possession become unauthorised, we find no ground to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.