Murti Radha Krishanji And Murti Thakurji, And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CM-5309-CWP-2022 in/and CWP No. 7045 of 2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 07 .04.2022 MURTI RADHA KRISHANJI AND MURTI THAKURJI, AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....Respondents *** BEFORE :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL *** Present:- Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.

*** CM-5309-CWP-2022 This application has been filed for advancing the date of hearing in the main case from 30.05.2022 to an earlier date as warrants of possession have been issued.

The application is accordingly allowed. The date of hearing is advanced to today and main case is taken up on board. CWP No. 7045 of 2022 The petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in dispute in proceedings initiated under the Haryana Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On the previous date, the matter was adjourned to 30.5.2022 to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to cite law that notice under Section 4 of the Act is different from the notice of the eviction petition. The matter has been taken up today as an application for advancing the date of hearing was filed on the ground that warrants of possession have been issued. The said application has been allowed.

POONAM RATHORE 2022.04.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No. 7045 of 2022 (O&M) -2Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Karnail Singh vs. Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Sirsa, 2001(3) RCR (Civil) 289, as well as Sunta Devi vs. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 720 in support of his arguments.

The judgments aforementioned do not support the case argued by the learned counsel. They only say that notice under Section 4 has to be issued once an eviction petition has been filed under the Act. Admittedly, notice of the eviction petition was issued to the petitioners. Thus, the distinction being sought to be raised between notice under Section 4 of the Act and notice of the eviction petition is misplaced. The judgments aforementioned do not draw any such distinction. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.

April 07, 2022 ( SUDHIR MITTAL ) poonam JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No POONAM RATHORE 2022.04.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document