Raj Kumar vs State of Punjab

K. Kannan, J.—There is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. The counsel for the Respondents is present. The Petitioner challenges the order of ejectment passed under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 on the ground that several other tenants had been allowed to be continued while action had been taken only against the Petitioner. He was referring to a policy of the Government dated 01.06.1970 allowing the occupants of 235 Government shops to continue irrespective of the fact whether they were original tenants or sub-tenants of original tenants or sub-tenants of sub-tenants. The policy also made reference to enhance rent, which was liable to be paid at the instance of the tenants.

While a State action is always to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 and discrimination could itself be a ground for annulling the action taken by the public authority, if justification could be shown by the State as to why a particular action for ejectment was taken against the tenant then, the issue of discrimination cannot arise. In this case, the action for ejectment was taken in the year 1984 when the Petitioner had created a sub-tenancy and also fallen into the arrears of rent. The ejectment action became necessary, according to the State, by the fact that the tenant did not pay rent in the manner contemplated under the policy issued on 01.06.1970 and they were entitled to take action for ejectment.

I cannot find fault with the order and it cannot be assailed as discriminatory by the tenant. The writ petition ough to fail and, therefore, dismissed. If there had been an subsequent agreement between parties, the same will not be in any way affected by this decision. This decision confines itself only to the tenability of the order of ejectment already passed on the grounds urged therein.