{"id":54856,"date":"2009-05-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-30T06:36:47","modified_gmt":"2017-09-30T01:06:47","slug":"balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009<\/div>\n
L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                           [1 ]\n\n\n\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &\n               HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n                          ...\n<\/pre>\n
L.P.A.No.284 of 2008<\/p>\n
Balwant Rai                          … Appellant<\/p>\n
                       VERSUS<\/p>\n
Zila Parishad, Ludhiana and others   … Respondents<\/p>\n
L.P.A.No.285 of 2008<\/p>\n
Rajinder Singh                       … Appellant<\/p>\n
                       VERSUS<\/p>\n
Zila Parishad, Ludhiana and others   … Respondents<\/p>\n
L.P.A.No.286 of 2008<\/p>\n
Satwinderpal Singh                   … Appellant<\/p>\n
                       VERSUS<\/p>\n
Zila Parishad, Ludhiana and others   … Respondents<\/p>\n
L.P.A.No.287 of 2008<\/p>\n
Rattan Singh                         … Appellant<\/p>\n
                       VERSUS<\/p>\n
Zila Parishad, Ludhiana and others   … Respondents
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                         [2 ]<\/p>\n
L.P.A.No.288 of 2008<\/p>\n
Devinder Singh and others                          … Appellants<\/p>\n
                         VERSUS<\/p>\n
Zila Parishad, Ludhiana and others                 … Respondents<\/p>\n
L.P.A.No.289 of 2008<\/p>\n
Kulwinder Singh                                    … Appellant<\/p>\n
                         VERSUS<\/p>\n
Zila Parishad, Ludhiana and others                 … Respondents<\/p>\n
Decided on : May 20, 2009<\/p>\n
CORAM :<\/p>\n
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH
\nHON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL<\/p>\n
Present:    Mr.Amit Rawal,
\n            Advocate for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr.Ashish Verma, Advocate
\n            for respondent No.1 – Zila Parishad.\n<\/p>\n
\nA.N.JINDAL, J.-\n<\/p>\n
            This judgment shall dispose of six Letters Patent Appeals<\/p>\n
directed against the common judgment dated 13.08.2008 passed by learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge of this Court setting aside the order of the Commissioner –<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 and restoring the order of the Collector – respondent No.3,<\/p>\n
ordering ejectment of the appellants, who were having kiosks (Khokhas)<\/p>\n
(later converted into shops) on the land in dispute.<\/p>\n
            This is second round of litigation thwarting the efforts of the<\/p>\n
respondent Zila Parishad (herein referred as `respondent’) for ousting their
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                      [3 ]<\/p>\n
licensees – appellants (herein referred as `appellants’) from the unauthorised<\/p>\n
occupation over the land under the respondent.     The     prime       question<\/p>\n
involved in the instant appeals is whether the licensees even after the expiry<\/p>\n
of their licenses could stay in the premises against the wishes of the<\/p>\n
licensor.\n<\/p>\n
             Though the controversy involved in all the six appeals is one<\/p>\n
and similar, but for the just decision of the same, the facts are being taken<\/p>\n
from L.P.A.No.284 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             The respondent is a statutory body constituted under the Punjab<\/p>\n
Samitis and Zila Parishad Act, 1961 (herein referred as Zila Parishad Act).<\/p>\n
In or around 1950, the respondent had given wooden kiosks to some<\/p>\n
persons, who had migrated from Pakistan on license. After the expiry of the<\/p>\n
license period, the respondent had moved for ejectment of the licensees<\/p>\n
under the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959<\/p>\n
(herein referred as Punjab Public Premises Act). The matter went upto the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court. However, during pendency of the SLP in the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court, an agreement had arrived at between the parties i.e, the Zila Parishad<\/p>\n
and the appellants\/licensees to the effect that the Zila Parishad will remove<\/p>\n
the kiosks and build the `Pucca’ shops and the same would be given to the<\/p>\n
occupants as licensees. It has further been agreed that license fee would be<\/p>\n
determined by the agreement and the area of the shops would also be<\/p>\n
determined according to the needs and area of kiosks, occupied by the<\/p>\n
licensees.    The agreement was complied with by the parties and the<\/p>\n
appellant agreed to occupy the shop as licensee for five years at the license
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                    [4 ]<\/p>\n
fee as fixed by the agreement and accordingly, he was put in possession in<\/p>\n
Shop No.52, Guru Teg Bahadur Market, Ludhiana (herein referred as the<\/p>\n
`disputed premises’). As per Clause 11 of the agreement, the license fee<\/p>\n
was to be increased to the extent of 3% in every five years. Pursuant to the<\/p>\n
aforesaid agreement executed in the year 1976, the license continued upto<\/p>\n
16.6.1981 and on renewal upto the year 1986. In the meanwhile, Punjab<\/p>\n
Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad (Sale, lease and other alienations of<\/p>\n
property and public places) Rules, 1964 (herein referred as the ‘Rules of<\/p>\n
1964’) were amended in the year 1984. The amended Rules provided for<\/p>\n
enhancement of the lease money by 10% of the existing lease amount, per<\/p>\n
year. Herein, it was also provided that in case, the licensee does not agree<\/p>\n
to such increase, then the property shall be leased out by auction.       In<\/p>\n
nutshell, according to the amended Rules, 1964 the property or any public<\/p>\n
place belonging to the respondent or Panchayat Samiti could be given on<\/p>\n
lease only by way of auction after giving due publicity and further with the<\/p>\n
occupant, who wanted to continue as lessee and could get the lease deed<\/p>\n
renewed three months prior to the expiry after enhancing the lease money<\/p>\n
by 10% per annum. According to Rule 3(b)(ii), the respondent approached<\/p>\n
the appellant and other similarly situated licensees for enhancement of the<\/p>\n
license fee\/lease money by 10%, but they resisted and did not agree to<\/p>\n
renew the license after the year 1986. they also did not vacate the shops<\/p>\n
after expiry of the lease period.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Sometime in the year 1989, some of the licensees including the<\/p>\n
appellant had filed CWP No.12881 for issuing a direction for quashing the
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                    [5 ]<\/p>\n
enhanced license fee i.e, to the extent of 10% per annum, which was<\/p>\n
dismissed vide order dated 25.4.1990 (Annexure P-2). However, in Review<\/p>\n
Application filed by the appellant\/s, the order dated 25.4.1990 was recalled<\/p>\n
with the observations that the appellant\/s (petitioners therein) may seek<\/p>\n
their remedy in Civil Court.   However, no civil suit was filed. After the<\/p>\n
expiry of the lease period, the application filed by the respondent under<\/p>\n
Public Premises Act for ejectment of the appellant was accepted, against<\/p>\n
which an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Patiala Division,<\/p>\n
Patiala, who vide order dated 23.11.1998 (Annexure P-5) set aside the order<\/p>\n
of ejectment passed by the Collector, Ludhiana dated 13.7.1994 (Annexure<\/p>\n
P-4) and remitted the case back with the following observations:-<\/p>\n
            “…the respondent -Zila Parishad will assess the remaining<\/p>\n
            recoverable amount w.e.f, the last date of the expiry of lease<\/p>\n
            and calculate enhancement @ 3% only and convey the same to<\/p>\n
            the lessees, who would be duty bound to deposit the same<\/p>\n
            within a period of one month from the date such orders are<\/p>\n
            received by him, failing which, the same can be recovered as<\/p>\n
            arrears of land revenue.    With the above observations the<\/p>\n
            parties present have been advised to appear before the<\/p>\n
            Collector on 15.3.1999.<\/p>\n
                  A copy of this order be placed in all the five files for<\/p>\n
            information and record.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                           Sd\/- RPS Pawar
\n                                           Commissioner, Patiala Division
\n                                           Patiala”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                      [6 ]<\/p>\n
            On filing of the review petition by the Zila Parishad, the<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dismissed the same vide order<\/p>\n
dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure P-6). Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the<\/p>\n
Zila Parishad filed writ petitions, which were allowed and the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge held as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “In the result, this petition is allowed, the order of the<\/p>\n
             Commissioner is set aside while that of the Collector ordering<\/p>\n
             the ejectment of the private respondent is restored. It is,<\/p>\n
             however, directed that the private respondent is granted 6<\/p>\n
             months time to vacate the premises. No costs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, which has been sought<\/p>\n
to be challenged by way of the instant appeals.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Submission of the appellant – licensee is that the respondent<\/p>\n
Zila Parishad has concealed the material facts as in the year 1997, the<\/p>\n
respondent had served a legal notice upon the appellant by giving reference<\/p>\n
to the notification dated 25.4.1984 and that the appellant had already<\/p>\n
enhanced the license fee which is being paid to the respondent, and,<\/p>\n
thereafter referred to the fact that the appellant had approached the<\/p>\n
respondents and on account of verbal statement, the license fee was<\/p>\n
assessed at the rate of Rs.984\/- per month for one year and the arrears after<\/p>\n
fixation of the license fee upto 31.08.1997 had been paid. It is further<\/p>\n
submitted that through the aforesaid notice, the appellant had been called<\/p>\n
upon to deposit the arrears of license fee at the rate carrying an increase of<\/p>\n
10% with effect from 1.9.1996 to 31.8.1997 and upto date after the
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                      [7 ]<\/p>\n
enhancement of the same by 10% from the previous year’s license fee. The<\/p>\n
appellant had also replied to the notice through his counsel, stating that the<\/p>\n
provision to increase the license fee by 10% is applicable only to those<\/p>\n
shops which were allotted in an open auction and further stated that the<\/p>\n
shop in question was taken at a monthly rent of Rs.285\/- per month and the<\/p>\n
respondent is illegally recovering the enhanced rent from the appellant<\/p>\n
under duress, mis-representation, and on threat of eviction.           It was<\/p>\n
specifically stated that the license deed was required to be written afresh<\/p>\n
and in case a document is there, then the same would continue and the<\/p>\n
appellant would remain a tenant by efflux of time on the same terms and<\/p>\n
conditions, on which the shop was earlier let out.<\/p>\n
            As regards the civil suit, it was submitted that it was filed,<\/p>\n
however, the same was withdrawn on the assurance given by the counsel for<\/p>\n
the respondent in the Trial court.    Further more, it is contended that the<\/p>\n
appellant is not under any obligation to execute the fresh license deed as<\/p>\n
the old license deed is still subsisting between the parties and no<\/p>\n
enhancement could be made. The factum with regard to the previous round<\/p>\n
of litigation upto the Supreme Court of India and with regard to entering<\/p>\n
into agreement with the respondent has been admitted. However, it was<\/p>\n
submitted that other 15 persons did not initiate any legal proceedings when<\/p>\n
the matter was pending before the Apex Court. However, the compromise<\/p>\n
was also arrived at between said 15 persons and the shops were also<\/p>\n
allocated to those 15 persons as well as to those 14 persons, who had<\/p>\n
initiated the legal proceedings. It was also admitted that pursuant to the<\/p>\n
agreement in the year 1976, the license deed was executed between the
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                     [8 ]<\/p>\n
respondent and the appellant\/s and they were allowed to use the shops as<\/p>\n
licensees and the license fee was fixed at the rate of Rs.708\/- per month.<\/p>\n
In the year 1981 i.e, on 16.6.1981, a fresh license deed was executed<\/p>\n
between the respondent and the appellant\/s.    It was also submitted that as<\/p>\n
per clause (7) of the deed (Annexure P-1), license fee was to be increased<\/p>\n
by 3% to which the licensee had no objection. It has been further averred<\/p>\n
that on 13.5.1988, the appellant\/s had received a notice dated 25.4.1984<\/p>\n
from the respondent calling upon him\/them to pay the increased license fee<\/p>\n
by 10% by giving reference to the rules and further called upon to execute<\/p>\n
an agreement.     Failing to comply with the terms of the notice, another<\/p>\n
notice was received on 4.8.1989, vide which the license executed in their<\/p>\n
favour was terminated and it was stated that if they continue to occupy the<\/p>\n
premises in question, the application for ejectment under Punjab Public<\/p>\n
Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 would be<\/p>\n
initiated.\n<\/p>\n
             The learned Single Judge while examining all the documents<\/p>\n
and giving due consideration to the rival contentions reached the conclusion<\/p>\n
that order of the Commissioner was not correct, therefore, after holding that<\/p>\n
since the petitioners (appellants herein) had not entered into a fresh<\/p>\n
agreement and were unauthorised occupants, directed their ejectment by<\/p>\n
restoring the order passed by the Collector.\n<\/p>\n
             Arguments heard.    Record perused.\n<\/p>\n
             The matter in nutshell relates to the shops situated in the<\/p>\n
commercial vicinity of the business hub of the State of Punjab i.e.<\/p>\n
Ludhiana.    Initially, the appellants were    allotted specific portion on
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                     [9 ]<\/p>\n
payment of some license fee.       Thereafter, they erected kiosks thereon.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, the respondents agreed to construct shops at the site with the<\/p>\n
intervention of the Apex Court and to give the same to the appellants by<\/p>\n
way of license. There is no denying a fact that during the aforesaid period,<\/p>\n
the Rules of 1964 had come into force, whereby, the Zila Parishad could let<\/p>\n
out the shop only by way of auction and that too for a period of five years.<\/p>\n
The said Rules were amended by introducing Punjab Panchayat Samitis<\/p>\n
and Zila Parishads (sale, lease and other alienation of property and public<\/p>\n
places) (First Amendment) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred as Rules of<\/p>\n
1984.\n<\/p>\n
            In the Rules of 1984, the following words were added in<\/p>\n
Clause (b) to Rule 3:-\n<\/p>\n
            “Provided that the auction shall not be necessary for the grant<\/p>\n
            of lease of property or public place if, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (i)such property or public place is proposed to be leased out to<\/p>\n
               the Central Government, State Government, a Corporation or<\/p>\n
               a Board owned or controlled by the Government or to a<\/p>\n
               Mahila Mandal and in such a case the amount of lease<\/p>\n
               money shall be assessed by the Executive Engineer,<\/p>\n
               Panchayati Raj working in the Department of Rural<\/p>\n
               Development and Panchayats in accordance with the<\/p>\n
               principles being followed by the Department of Public<\/p>\n
               Works in assessing the rental value of the property;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ii)the person to whom the property or public place is initially<\/p>\n
               leased out by auction agrees, three months prior to the expiry
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                      [10]<\/p>\n
             of the lease period, to enhance the lease money by ten<\/p>\n
             percent of the amount of existing lease money per year.”<\/p>\n
In the said Rules of 1984, after Rule 7, the following words have been<\/p>\n
added:-\n<\/p>\n
           “8.(1)         If the person to whom the property or public place<\/p>\n
           is leased out under the provisions of these rules neither delivers<\/p>\n
           to the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be,<\/p>\n
           the vacant possession of the property or public place<\/p>\n
           immediately after the expiry of the period of lease nor agrees to<\/p>\n
           enhance the lease money as provided in clause (ii) of the<\/p>\n
           proviso to clause (b) of rule 3, within the period specified<\/p>\n
           therein, he shall, for the period he retains the property or public<\/p>\n
           place in an unauthorised possession, be liable to pay to the<\/p>\n
           Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be, an<\/p>\n
           amount equivalent to twenty times the amount which would<\/p>\n
           have been payable had the lease of such property or public<\/p>\n
           place continued during that period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (2)      The provisions contained in sub-rule (1) shall be deemed<\/p>\n
           to be one of the terms of lease of property and public place<\/p>\n
           granted by the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, after the<\/p>\n
           commencement of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila<\/p>\n
           Parishads (sale, lease and other alienation of property and<\/p>\n
           public places) (First Amendment) Rules, 1984.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           No doubt, initially the occupants were inducted as licensees,
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                      [11]<\/p>\n
however, with the incorporation of the aforesaid rules, certainly the same<\/p>\n
became applicable to the appellants as the Statutory Rules would supersede<\/p>\n
the conditions of the license agreement and it would not be lawful for the<\/p>\n
appellants to claim different treatment for their long stay. As such, the<\/p>\n
appellants could not claim the protection of stipulations in their agreements<\/p>\n
prior to 1964, but they were duty bound by the stipulations as incorporated<\/p>\n
in the Statutory provisions. Actually, the appellants being the licensees had<\/p>\n
no claim to stay, on non-compliance of the provisions of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
Rules. They continued dragging the respondents on account of one<\/p>\n
litigation or the other. It is third round of litigation on the basis of which<\/p>\n
they are claiming their possession. Earlier, in view of the judgment dated<\/p>\n
16.10.1969 delivered by the Apex Court, the shops were constructed and<\/p>\n
possession of the same was given to the appellants under an agreement as<\/p>\n
licensees for a period of five years, which continued upto 1986.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, on account of the amendment in 1984, when the appellants were<\/p>\n
asked to enter into fresh agreement after making payment of enhanced lease<\/p>\n
money by 10% of the existing lease money per year, they (19 persons) filed<\/p>\n
CWP No.12881 of 1989 titled “Gurbax Singh and others vs. Zila Parishad,<\/p>\n
Ludhiana and another”, in which the Division Bench of this Court vide its<\/p>\n
judgment dated 25.4.1990 while dismissing the petition observed as under:-<\/p>\n
            “The challenge here is to the demand for enhanced license fee,<\/p>\n
            on the wholly untenable plea that the provisions of Punjab<\/p>\n
            Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad (Sale, lease and other<\/p>\n
            alteration of property and Public Places) Rules, 1964<\/p>\n
            (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules’) were not applicable, as
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                     [12]<\/p>\n
            the petitioners had entered into possession of the shops under<\/p>\n
            agreements.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Admittedly, the shops belong to the Zila Parishad and the<\/p>\n
            petitioners have been in possession thereof, as licensees and<\/p>\n
            what is more, the agreements referred to by them were for a<\/p>\n
            limited period of time which has since elapsed. No exception<\/p>\n
            can thus be taken to the Zila Parishad calling upon them to pay<\/p>\n
            enhanced license fee in terms of rule 3(b) of the Rules.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   Dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            April 25, 1990                  sd\/- S.S.Sodhi, Judge\n                                            sd\/- A.P.Chowdhri, Judge\"\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
            It appears that since the doors of the appellants to insist for<\/p>\n
their claim were shut for all times to come, they moved an application for<\/p>\n
review of the aforesaid order, wherein, the Division Bench while allowing<\/p>\n
the application, passed the following order:-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            “We recall our order dated April 25, 1990 and instead dismiss<\/p>\n
            the writ petition with the observation that the petitioners may<\/p>\n
            seek their remedy in the Civil Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            September 7, 1990               sd\/- S.S.Sodhi, Judge\n                                            sd\/- A.P.Chowdhri, Judge\"\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Any way, though the Division Bench had recalled the detailed order, yet<\/p>\n
they had dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioners therein, to<\/p>\n
seek remedy before Civil Court, if they so desired, however, the Division<\/p>\n
Bench was never of the view that the respondents were not within their
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                       [13]<\/p>\n
powers to enhance the license fee.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            It is worthwhile to notice that the appellants (licensees\/<\/p>\n
petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition) though, had filed a civil suit, but<\/p>\n
they, for the reasons best known to them, had withdrawn the same.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Faced with the situation, the Collector, Zila Parishad, Ludhiana<\/p>\n
had to apply for ejectment of the appellants from the premises on the<\/p>\n
ground of unauthorised occupancy. It is well-settled by now that in case of<\/p>\n
public premises owned by the Government or the semi-Governmental<\/p>\n
bodies, on the expiry of the lease, the possession of the premises becomes<\/p>\n
unauthorised and illegal and no further notice is required and the<\/p>\n
Authorities are vested with the powers under the Public Premises Act for<\/p>\n
ejecting the unauthorised occupants and they could deal with the public<\/p>\n
premises in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Public Premises<\/p>\n
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. There is no denying a fact that<\/p>\n
the shops in possession of the appellants are public premises. It has also<\/p>\n
not been denied that the appellants had earlier been in possession as<\/p>\n
licensees and after the licenses had expired in 1986, they did not opt to<\/p>\n
renew the license as per terms and conditions under the Rules of 1984. As<\/p>\n
such, after the expiry of the period of lease, they were unauthorised<\/p>\n
occupants. Resultantly, the District Development and Panchayat Officer-<\/p>\n
cum- Collector, Ludhiana, while exercising the powers under the Public<\/p>\n
Premises Act, accepted the petitions and ordered the ejectment of the<\/p>\n
appellants while observing as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “…I have come to this conclusion that on 15.6.1986 the period<\/p>\n
            mentioned in the lease deed came to an end. The respondent
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                      [14]<\/p>\n
            did not get the lease deed renewed according to the terms and<\/p>\n
            conditions of the Zila Parishad. It is correct that the respondent<\/p>\n
            did not take this shop in open auction but the license deed<\/p>\n
            signed by him contains a clause of the renewal of lease deed<\/p>\n
            every five years. It is clearly stated that in case any condition<\/p>\n
            is violated or he does not get his lease deed renewed at time<\/p>\n
            then he will be liable to be ejected.       The respondent has<\/p>\n
            violated the terms of the lease deed and he did not get renewed<\/p>\n
            after 15.6.86. In so far as the question of notice for renewal of<\/p>\n
            the lease deed is concerned, the same is not required because it<\/p>\n
            is not the duty of the Zila Parishad that it should issue any<\/p>\n
            notice. Rather it is the duty of the respondent that it should get<\/p>\n
            its lease deed renewed in time as per the usual practice. Zila<\/p>\n
            Parishad had written a letter to the respondent that a fresh lease<\/p>\n
            deed may be written with 10% increase in rent but the<\/p>\n
            respondent did not do so…..”\n<\/p>\n
At the end, the Collector ordered the ejectment of the respondent (appellant<\/p>\n
herein) from the shop No.53. No illegality in the aforesaid order dated<\/p>\n
13.7.1994 (Annexure P-4) could be pointed out by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants as has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge. Since<\/p>\n
the proceedings before the Collector under the Public Premises Act are of<\/p>\n
summary in nature, no issues were required to be framed and the<\/p>\n
Authorities are not required to deal with the case like a trial in a suit. The<\/p>\n
Apex Court while dealing with the issue of res-judicata also dealt with the<\/p>\n
procedure in such cases, in the matter of Inder Singh and another vs.
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                     [15]<\/p>\n
The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 53 and<\/p>\n
observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “Shri Ujagar Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
            contended that the view taken by the High Court is not correct<\/p>\n
            in law. Since the proceedings before the authorities are of<\/p>\n
            summary nature, the doctrine of res judicata has no application.<\/p>\n
            The Act does not prescribe any principles of res judicata as<\/p>\n
            such. The proceedings before the authorities are of summary<\/p>\n
            nature. It would not be correct to apply the principle of res<\/p>\n
            judicata. We find force in the contention. It is not in dispute<\/p>\n
            that the order passed      by the authorities is without any<\/p>\n
            elaborate trial like in a suit but in a summary manner.     It is<\/p>\n
            well settled law that the doctrine of res judicata envisaged in<\/p>\n
            Section 11 of CPC has no application to summary proceedings<\/p>\n
            unless the statute expressly applies to such orders. The<\/p>\n
            authorities are not civil Court nor the petition a plaint,<\/p>\n
            (emphasis laid). No issues are framed nor tried as a civil suit.<\/p>\n
            Under these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High<\/p>\n
            Court was clearly in error to conclude that the earlier<\/p>\n
            proceedings operate as res judicata.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The order passed by the Commissioner dated 12.10.1999<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-5) actually did not upset the earlier order, but it was only a<\/p>\n
remand order to invite the parties to enhance the rent only at the rate of 3%<\/p>\n
per annum after three years.       Without commenting over the rate of
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                        [16]<\/p>\n
enhancement, it would be suffice to observe that the enhancement could<\/p>\n
only be in terms of the provisions of Rules of 1984 and not under the<\/p>\n
agreement prevailing prior to coming into force the said Rules.<\/p>\n
            As a matter of fact, the appellants are contesting nothing, but<\/p>\n
resisting the enhancement. The order dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure P-5)<\/p>\n
passed by the Commissioner, Patiala also refers to enhancement of rent,<\/p>\n
which has been challenged in the present round of litigation.<\/p>\n
            At the cost of repetition here, it may be observed that earlier<\/p>\n
also, the appellants had come to the Court by way of a writ petition, which<\/p>\n
was dismissed by the Division Bench by observing that the authorities were<\/p>\n
competent to enhance the rent as per the 1984 Rules. However, in order to<\/p>\n
get rid of the said order passed by the Division Bench, the appellants appear<\/p>\n
to have pleaded for mercy before the Court to agitate the issue before the<\/p>\n
Civil Court. After withdrawal from the Civil Court, they continued to<\/p>\n
contest the enhanced rent before the Collector or Commissioner, which<\/p>\n
orders were again challenged in the writ petition, wherein, the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 13.8.2008, again while<\/p>\n
validating the orders of the Authorities observed that the Rules would be<\/p>\n
applicable after the expiry of the period as specified in the agreement.<\/p>\n
Since the Commissioner, Patiala had also gone a step further without going<\/p>\n
into the validity of the order of the Collector, therefore, the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
and restoring that of the Collector, whereby, the appellants were directed to
\n L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M)                                   [17]<\/p>\n
ejected from the premises, which were in their unauthorised occupation<\/p>\n
after the year 1986.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the above discussion, all these appeals being devoid<\/p>\n
of any merit are hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                        ( UMA NATH SINGH )             ( A.N.JINDAL )\n                             JUDGE                        JUDGE\nMay 20, 2009\n`gian\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009 L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 (O&M) [1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH … L.P.A.No.284 of 2008 Balwant Rai … Appellant VERSUS Zila Parishad, Ludhiana and others … Respondents L.P.A.No.285 of 2008 Rajinder Singh … Appellant VERSUS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBalwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-30T01:06:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T01:06:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4044,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T01:06:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-30T01:06:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T01:06:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009"},"wordCount":4044,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009","name":"Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T01:06:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-zila-parishad-on-20-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balwant Rai vs Zila Parishad on 20 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54856","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}