Skip to content


Harnam Singh Vs. the State of Punjab - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Civil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ No. 47 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1953P& H176
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226 and 226(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
AppellantHarnam Singh
RespondentThe State of Punjab
Appellant Advocate A.R. Kapur,; R.N. Aggarwal and; N.S. Keer, Advs.
Respondent Advocate S.M. Sikri, Adv. General and; B.S. Chawla, Adv. for; S.
Disposition Petition dismissed
Excerpt:
- haryana urban(control of rent and eviction)act,1973[har.act no.11/1973] -- section 4(2)(b): [m.m. kumar, hemant gupta, ajay & kumar mittal, jj] determination of fair rent held, the fair rent of building under the section is to be determined on the basis of rent agreed between landlord and tenant preceding the date of application. in the absence of rent agreed between parties the basic rent is required to be determined on the basis of rent prevailing in locality for a similar building or rented land on the date of application. if on the date of filing of the application under section 4 of the act for determination of fair rent, the agreed rent was still in vogue thus, it has to be regarded as the basic rent and the same would be constituted as the basis for determining fair rent. ..........to leave the portion in his occupation, prahlad singh sought the help of the government. the punjab government thereupon pro-nosed to take steps to eject the petitioner. the petitioner's grievance is that the punjab government has no right to eject him from these premises. 3. the argument of mr. kapur who appears on behalf of the petitioner is briefly this. the petitioner was allowed to stay in these premises up to the end of february 1952. the premises were derequisitioned on 18-12-1951, and the punjab government took no steps at that time to deliver vacant possession to the landlord and it is now too late to do so. the petitioner having been allowed to remain in occupation of the premises beyond the date upon which the premises were derequisitioned the punjab government cannot.....
Judgment:

Khosla, J.

1. This is a petition by Harnam Singh Shan praying for a writ of prohibition, certiorari or any other appropriate order against the Punjab State and the District Magistrate of Simla requiring them not to interfere with the petitioner's occupation of a portion of house No. 135, Bemloe View.

2. The facts briefly are that the PunjabState requisitioned the upper flat of the housein dispute in November 1957. The house wasallotted partly to the petitioner Harnam SinghShan and partly to Prahlad Singh a clerk inthe office of the Director of Public Instruction,Simla. On 18-12-1951 an order derequisitioningthe house was passed. Both the occupants,however, continued to remain in possession andit was understood that the landlord had leasedout the entire requisitioned premises to PrahladSingh. The allegation of the petitioner is thatPrahlad Singh allowed the petitioner to remainin possession until the end of February 1952.After that the petitioner was to execute anagreement which would further extend hisoccupation of the premises.

There is nothing on the record to show Wat the landlord executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner or that Prahlad Singh sublet any portion of the premises to the petitioner. Since Prahlad Singh wanted to take possession of the entire house and since the petitioner was not prepared to leave the portion in his occupation, Prahlad Singh sought the help of the Government. The Punjab Government thereupon pro-nosed to take steps to eject the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance is that the Punjab Government has no right to eject him from these premises.

3. The argument of Mr. Kapur who appears on behalf of the petitioner is briefly this. The petitioner was allowed to stay in these premises up to the end of February 1952. The premises were derequisitioned on 18-12-1951, and the Punjab Government took no steps at that time to deliver vacant possession to the landlord and it is now too late to do so. The petitioner having been allowed to remain in occupation of the premises beyond the date upon which the premises were derequisitioned the Punjab Government cannot now eject him and therefore the steps which the Punjab Government propose to take are in excess of their authority arid unlawful to that extent.

4. It must be clearly understood that this Court will not take action under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it is completely satisfied that the petitioner has a legal right which has been infringed or is about to be infringed or some illegal wrong has been inflicted upon him or is about to be inflicted upon him. In such cases the Court will proceed to consider the matter further and enquire whether any person has acted in excess of the authority conferred upon him by law and when this is proved an appropriate writ will issue.

In the present case we find that the petitioner claims to be a tenant in his petition, but in fact he is not a tenant. The petitioner has not produced any evidence of tenancy. All that is said on his behalf now is that he was a licensee inasmuch as he was permitted by Prahlad Singh to remain in occupation of a part of the premises until the end of February 1952. It is conceded by Mr. Kapur that although a tenancy may have been contemplated, there was no agreement between the petitioner and the landlord entitling the petitioner to remain in possession as a tenant. The petitioner therefore is admittedly not a tenant.

Mr. Kapur next argues that the petitioner asa licensee has a legal right to remain in possession of the premises in his occupation. In thepetition it is nowhere alleged that the petitioneris a licensee nor has Mr. Kapur been able toshow any license in the petitioner's favour. Themost that can be said is that as an act ofcharity the petitioner was allowed to remainin occupation of the premises until the end ofFebruary 1952 because he was unable at thattime to move into any other house. The occupation of the petitioner therefore after the endof February 1952 became the occupation of atrespasser and it cannot be said that at the timethis petition was filed or today the petitionerhas any legal right to remain in possession of these premises or that he is being wrongfullyejected therefrom. The petitioner has thereforeno 'locus standi' to move this Court under Article226 of the Constitution and his petition mustbe dismissed with costs which I would assessat Rs. 100/-.

Falshaw, J.

5. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //