Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab and others

The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside impugned order dated 6.4.2004 (Annexure P-1)

passed by Collector, Sub Division, Budlada, District Mansa, whereby, rent of shop allotted to the petitioner has been assessed as well as order dated

8.1.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.4, whereby, objections filed by the petitioner in the execution proceedings have been rejected and

warrant for possession has been ordered. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of order 29.1.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by Deputy

Commissioner, Mansa, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against order of dismissal of objections, has also been dismissed.

Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that Municipal Council, Budlada constructed some shops in the area of Nagar

Council in the year 1997. The petitioner was allotted shop bearing shop No. 6 against certain terms and conditions and since then the petitioner is in

possession of that shop. As per terms and conditions of the allotment, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid by the allottee in two installments and

thereafter the possession was to be handed over to successful bidder/allottee.

When the rent was not paid, an application was filed by respondent No.5 under Sections 4,5 and 7 of Public Premises Act, 1975 for payment of

balance rent or to vacate the shop. The Collector, Sub Division, Budhlada vide its order dated 6.4.2004 ordered the petitioner to deposit the rent of the

shop in dispute at the rate of Rs.31,00/- per month w.e.f. 31.12.1997, failing which, Municipal Council, Budhlada would be entitled to take over the

possession from the petitioner. When order dated 6.4.2014 was not complied with, an execution application was filed by the Municipal Council,

Budhlada under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC for compliance of order dated 6.4.2004 and for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,47,200/-, which was allowed.

The executing Court ordered to take warrant of possession of the shop in dispute for compliance of order dated 6.4.2004. Aggrieved by said order, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, which was also dismissed. Orders dated 6.4.2004, 8.1.2018 and 29.1.2018 are

subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the shop in dispute since 31.12.1997 and has also invested huge

amount. The petitioner has been directed to vacate the shop in dispute after a gap of 12 years. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is

ready to deposit the amount claimed by the respondent-Municipal Council, Budhlada in case liberty is given to him to deposit the amount. Heard the

arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned orders and other documents available on file.

Admittedly, the shop in dispute was allotted to the petitioner by Municipal Council, Budhlada against certain terms and conditions. The petitioner

remained in possession of said shop since 31.12.1997. Respondent No.5 filed an application before the Collector, Sub Division, Budhlada under

Sections 4,5 and 7 of Public Premises Act, 1975 for payment of balance amount of rent or vacation of shop from the petitioner. The Collector allowed

the application vide its order dated 6.4.2004 and directed the petitioner to deposit at the rate of Rs.3100/- per month to Municipal Council as rent from

the date of possession i.e. 31.12.1997 failing which the possession over the shop in dispute was to be taken over by the Municipal Council. Thereafter

an execution application was filed by respondent No.5 under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC for compliance of order dated 6.4.2004 and for recovery of

amount of Rs.3,47,200/-, which was allowed and warrant of possession of shop in dispute was issued. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioner filed an

appeal before Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, which was also dismissed. The impugned orders have been challenged only on the ground that the

petitioner is in possession of the shop in dispute since 31.12.1997 and is ready to deposit the amount as claimed by the respondents. Admittedly, the

petitioner has not paid any rent w.e.f. 31.12.1997. The petitioner himself has admitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa that he is running a

shop since allotment and no amount has been deposited. Objections filed by the petitioner in execution petition were dismissed vide order dated

8.1.2018 after hearing counsel for the parties. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner against order of dismissal of objections were also

dismissed. Admittedly, the petitioner has neither challenged order dated 6.4.2004 by way of filing appeal/revision before the authorities below and has

approached directly to this Court. The amount as ordered by the Collector has also not been deposited by him. Even the order of rejection of objection

was not challenged. The conduct of the petitioner itself shows that he was not interested in making the payment of rent in spite of order passed in his

favour even after filing of execution petition.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.