Jeet Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Jagmohan Chandel, Advocate. _ For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 23.12.2019, Annexure P-5, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, in terms whereof, the order of eviction dated

08.12.2016, Annexure P-2, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Shimla, Rural, against the petitioner under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 for vacating the premises for the want of the payment of arrears and license fee as well as use and occupation charges, has been upheld. The petitioner has also challenged Annexure P-1, which is an administrate order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (L&O) to Tehsildar Shimla (Rural) to evict the petitioner from the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 premises in issue.

The petitioner is in occupation of the premises of the respondent at Chini Banglaw and is a defaulter as the license fee and use and occupation charges have not been paid by the petitioner so as to liquidate the liability which the petitioner owes to the respondent. Earlier the petitioner was being represented by Mr. S.D. Gill, learned Counsel and subsequently, Mr. Jagmohan Chandel, learned Counsel, has been engaged by the petitioner.

Learned Additional Advocate General has informed the Court that the petitioner is in arrears of in excess of Rs.10,00,000/- as of today. However, on the strength of the interim order that has been passed by the Court, the petitioner continues to be in occupation of the premises and no serious endeavour has been made by the petitioner to liquidate the arrears.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the order impugned.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate that there was any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Authorities and it is a matter of record that the petitioner has not paid the amount as is due from him to the respondent. The premises undisputedly is a public premises and the 3 petitioner cannot enjoy the luxuries of using the same without liquidating the dues as are payable by him to the respondent, which in terms of the instructions imparted by the learned Additional Advocate General today are to the tune of Rs.15,56,687/-. These instructions are taken on record.