Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Manocha vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Ors on 21 November, 2014
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
-1-
CWP No. 129-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 129-2014 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 21.11.2014
Manjit Manocha
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate,
for respondents no.2 and 3.
Paramjeet Singh, J.(Oral)
CM-14124-2014 Allowed, as prayed for. Replication to written statement filed on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3, is taken on record. CWP No. 129-2014 Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 18.11.2013 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent no.1 whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from Verka Milk Bar, Punjab, Engineering PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.12.05 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -2- CWP No. 129-2014 College, Sector 12, Chandigarh under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short 'the 1971 Act') and the order dated 07.12.2013 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Appellate Authority whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
In brief, facts of the case are to the effect that Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, (in short 'PEC'), now a deemed university, initially constructed Mini Market in which various types of shops and booths were constructed. Allottee of one of the booths had to run Verka Milk Bar. The Punjab State Coop. Milk Producers Federation Limited, Milk Plant, Industrial Area-I, Chandigarh (for short 'Milkfed') had given an offer to sell its products. Vide letter dated 22.05.2002, it had authorized Bhupinder Singh along with Mohan Inder Singh and Ravinder Singh to run the Verka Milk Bar in the premises of PEC as there was no Verka Milk Bar to cater the needs of students and residents of vicinity. No terms and conditions were fixed or reduced into writing between the Milkfed and Bhupinder Singh and others nor with PEC. Ravinder Singh and Mohan Inder Singh are alleged to have entered into an agreement to sell dated 24.05.2005 (Annexure P-1) with regard to Verka Milk Bar in favour of the petitioner representing themselves to be owners in possession. Vide letter dated 14.10.2005 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was allotted the agency for selling Verka Milk and its products in the area of PEC. It is further pleaded that the petitioner started paying rent to PEC. Thereafter, false complaints of misbehaving, overcharging PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.12.05 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -3- CWP No. 129-2014 and not paying rent in time were filed against the petitioner. Upon this, show cause notice dated 05.07.2013 (Annexure P-7) was issued by respondent no.1-Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh under the provisions of the 1971 Act. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. After considering the reply to show cause notice, respondent no.1 ordered for eviction of the petitioner under Section 5 of the 1971 Act, vide impugned order dated 18.11.2013 (Annexure P-10). Against that, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.12.2013 (Annexure P-11). Hence, this writ petition.
In pursuance of notice of motion, respondents no.2 and 3 filed written statement with the averments that Ravinder Singh, who was responsible for day-to-day running of the Verka Booth, entered into an agreed to sell it to Manjit Singh Manocha. The Milkfed vide letter dated 14.10.2005, allotted the said booth on 'Cash & Carry' basis to said Manjit Mancoha for sale of Verka Milk and fresh milk products. Thereafter, a rent of ` 6,00/- per month was fixed by PEC for the said Verka Milk Booth w.e.f. June, 2005 and Manjit Manocha was informed accordingly vide letter dated 23.03.2006. Since then, the petitioner has been invariably in default for the payment of rent. The said booth was not leased/rented out by PEC to Milkfed. Number of complaints regarding misbehaviour and overcharging were received against the petitioner. The petitioner had also put commercial advertisement boards displaying sale of products other than Verka products on the booth PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.12.05 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -4- CWP No. 129-2014 without permission of the competent authority of PEC. It is further pleaded that show cause notice dated 18.04.2013 was issued to the petitioner to explain his position and submit reply, but he did not receive the same. Another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was received by him on 22.04.2013. Thereafter, a Committee was constituted by the Director, PEC to look into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Before the Committee, the petitioner stated that he had already removed the commercial advertisement boards from the Booth, but in fact, the boards were intact on the Booth even on 07.06.2013 i.e. the date of submission of report by the Committee. Ultimately, the Committee made recommendation for cancellation of allotment of Verka Milk Booth. The Director, PEC accepted and approved the recommendations of the Committee and allotment of booth was cancelled with immediate effect vide order dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure R-3/25). However, the petitioner had not vacated the booth and thereby he became an unauthorized occupant of the public premises w.e.f 26.06.2013. Vide letter dated 27.06.2013, the Estate Officer, U.T.Chandigarh was requested for initiating eviction proceedings against the petitioner under the 1971 Act and also for recovering penal rent from him @ ` 30,000/- per month from 26.06.2013 till booth is vacated by him.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.12.05 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -5- CWP No. 129-2014 the Milkfed, Milk Plant, Industrial Area-1,Chandigarh authorized Bhupinder Singh along with Mohan Inder Singh and Ravinder Singh to run Verka Milk Booth in the premises of PEC. At that time, no terms and conditions were reduced into writing. Ravinder Singh, partner is solely responsible for day to day running of the Verka Booth, appointed the petitioner his general power of attorney for the purpose of day to day running of said Verka Milk Bar. Learned counsel further contends that prior to 14.10.2005, no rent was ever charged from the previous agent to whom the agency was allotted, but it started w.e.f. 23.03.2006. The petitioner has been continuously paying the rent to PEC on the receipt of letter from PEC. The notice for eviction has been wrongly issued on the false premises of misbehaving, overcharging and not paying the rent in time. As such, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 vehemently contends that booth in question is the property of PEC. The Milkfed was authorized by the authorities of PEC to sell its products through its agent in the premises of PEC by placing the same in booth known as 'Verka Milk Bar'. Neither Milkfed nor Bhupinder Singh, Mohan Inder Singh and Ravinder Singh are the owners of said booth. In fact,they were placing their articles in the booth and selling to the students. There is no contract between PEC and Milkfed or its agents. In fact, it was a licence given to Milkfed to sell its products through its agents and authorities had to pay licence fee for selling their products by placing the same in the said booth. Learned counsel further contends PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.12.05 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -6- CWP No. 129-2014 that there were numerous complaints that the petitioner was overcharging, misbehaving and not paying licence fee in time. It was also alleged that besides this, the petitioner was also displaying commercial advertisement board on the said booth without the permission of the PEC and was also creating many problems. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP-13540- 2013 against the order dated 10.06.2013, but no stay was granted to him. Now the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.06.2013, already challenged in CWP-13540-2013, on the basis of which impugned order dated 18.11.2013 (Annexure P-10) has been passed. Since the basic order is subsisting, the impugned order dated 18.11.2013 (Annexure P-
10) is execution of the same. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.
I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, there is no written document or note signed by the PEC authorities with the petitioner or Milkfed. Now the question arises if it is not so, certainly it cannot be considered as a lease. The real test to determine the same is the document/transaction, if any, entered between the parties. It is also the admitted case that Milkfed through its agents was authorized to sell its products in the premises of PEC. Firstly, Milkfed is not the owner. Initially, Milkfed was allowed to sell its products for the benefit of the students without payment of any licence fee. The licence was granted to sell its products through its agents. PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.12.05 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -7- CWP No. 129-2014 Thereafter, PEC authorities have charged licence fee for selling the products by sitting in its premises. As such, the petitioner cannot be held to be a tenant. The petitioner is only a licensee who is acting as an agent of Milkfed.
Perusal of documents (Annexures R-3/14 and R-3/15) reveals that there were complaints against the petitioner in respect of over- charging and misbehaving with the students and employees. The petitioner is also found to be a defaulter for not paying the rent in time.
The impugned order dated 18.11.2013 has been passed in view of order dated 10.06.2013 passed by the competent authority. Earlier the petitioner was given show cause notices and in pursuance thereof, he stated that he had removed the commercial advertisements from the Verka Booth, but the authorities of PEC found the same to be false and the commercial advertisement boards were intact. Thereafter, the order dated 10.06.2013 was passed. Against that, the petitioner filed CWP- 13540-2013, but no stay was granted. Accordingly, on the basis of order dated 10.06.2013, the impugned order dated 18.11.2013 (Annexure P-
10) has been passed. Since the basic order dated 10.06.2013 cancelling the permission to sell articles from the booth was challenged in CWP- 13540-2013 which has been dismissed, now the petitioner cannot agitate the taking of possession of the booth in question. Taking possession of the premises in question is in fact in compliance of order dated 10.06.2013.
PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.12.05 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -8- CWP No. 129-2014 In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
No order as to costs.
21.11.2014 (Paramjeet Singh)
parveen kumar Judge
PARVEEN KUMAR
2014.12.05 12:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document