JUDGMENT
J.P. Singh, J.
1. The petitioner, a tenant of Joginder Singh respondent No. 6 in respect of a shop situated at Below Gummat Jammu constructed on land comprised in Khasra No. 325, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for protection of his status as a tenant and for quashing Government Order No. Rev (NDJ) 80 of 1997 dated 07.04.1997 besides seeking treatment similar to the one which had been given by State of Jammu and Kashmir, respondent No. 1 to the tenants of respondent No. 7, Bhupinder Kour while regularizing her possession over a plot of land comprised in Khasra No. 325 situated at Below Gummat, Jammu.
2. The petitioner says that Joginder Singh is the lessee of land measuring 1184 Sq. Ft. falling in Khasra No. 325 on the basis of a lease granted to him by the State Government. One of the shops constructed by Joginder Singh over this land had been let out to the petitioner in the year 1981. According to the petitioner, the lease granted by the Government to Joginder Singh had been renewed vide Government Order No. Rev (NDJ) 80 of 1997 dated 07.04.1997 but without providing protection to the petitioner who is a tenant in the shop thereby treating him differently than the tenants of respondent No. 7 Bhupinder Kour whose possession over the land was regularized vide Government Order No. GR-188 Rev (NDJ) of 1990 dated 9.10.1990.
3. State-respondents have filed objections to this writ petition to urge that the case of the petitioner was not similar to that of the tenants of respondent No. 7 and, as such, petitioner’s claim for equal treatment was misconceived. Giving history of the two cases, the State respondents say that one Hira Lal Aneja, father of respondent No. 6 and his brother Isher Dass were Wasidar of Nazool land comprised in Khasra No. 325 measuring 17 marlas 110 Sq. Ft. situated at Below Gummat Jammu in equal shares which had been leased out to them by Divisional Commissioner, Jammu vide his order dated 9.2.1995 B. K.
4. Vide Mutation No. 766 dated 12.2.1972, the Leasehold rights of the share of Late Hira Lal were transferred in equal shares to respondent No. 6 and his brother Satish Kumar. Satish Kumar is stated to have later sold his leasehold property to respondent No. 7 Bhupinder Kour but without obtaining permission in this behalf. Respondent No. 7 appears to have approached the Government for regularization of her possession over Nazool land measuring 1184 Sq. ft. It appears that Varinder Gupta, Charan Dass and Jagdish Raj had filed applications before the Assistant Commissioner, Nazool, Jammu complaining about the illegal sale of State land to respondent No. 7. It was during the process of consideration of this case by the State Government that possession of respondent No. 7 was regularized vide GR-188 Rev (NDJ) of 1990 dated 9.10.1990 but with a condition that the tenants in the land would continue to be tenants of respondent No. 7. According to the State respondents, respondent No. 6 is the original lessee of the land and had not committed any default in rendering his possession over the land “un-authorized”. Renewal of the original leasehold rights of petitioner cannot thus be compared with the regularization of possession of respondent No. 7. They say that the tenancy rights of the petitioner are governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 and that the respondents had not committed any illegality in renewing the leasehold rights of respondent No. 6.
5. The stand taken by the State respondents has been reiterated by respondent No. 6 too, who has additionally submitted and placed on records, a copy of the judgment passed by this Court in CSA No. 17/2006 titled Kewal Krishan v. Joginder Singh to urge that the relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No. 6 and the petitioner stands terminated with the conclusion of eviction proceedings which the respondents had initiated against the petitioner; And in view of the compromise entered into between the petitioner and respondents, as recorded in CSA No. 17/2006, the petitioner has to surrender possession of the shop to respondent No. 6 on 29th of August, 2007 failing which the decree holder is entitled to execute the decree. Undertaking filed by the petitioner to deliver the possession too has been placed on records.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
7. Plea of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to treatment similar to the one which had been allowed by the State Government to the tenants of respondent No. 7 Bupinder Kour appears to be misconceived because there is no similarity in the renewal of lease of respondent No. 6 and regularization of possession of respondent No. 7 who had been found by the State Government to have violated the terms of the grant of lease to Satish Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 7. Grant, renewal or otherwise of a lease of property owned by the State Government is a matter between the Lessor and Lessee i.e. the State Government and the Wasidar (Lessee). Permissible sub-tenants of the lease cannot be conceded any such right to oppose the grant or renewal of lease by the lessor to the lessee on the basis of the objector’s status as a sub-tenant or occupant in the leased premises unless however, the lessee had lost his right to retain the leasehold or seeks its renewal. Satish Kumar’s lease transferring the leasehold rights by entering into a sale deed with respondent No. 7, was a transaction which was contrary to the provisions of the Land Grants Act, 1960. Position of respondent No. 7, could not thus be compared with that of respondent No. 6, who is not alleged to have incurred any such disqualification before seeking renewal of his leasehold. There is no similarity in the two cases thus. Petitioner’s plea of seeking similar treatment as had been provided by the State to the tenants of respondent No. 7 is thus rejected as without merit.
8. Plea of the petitioner that his status as a tenant in the Shop needs to be protected, too, is untenable in view of the judgment of this Court passed in CSA No. 17/2006 and an undertaking filed by the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 29th of August, 2006 in CSA No. 17/2006 that he would vacate the shop in question before 29th of August, 2007. Petitioner’s case having been found to be dissimilar to the tenants of respondent No. 7, he is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.
9. For all what has been said above, there is no merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.