1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8918 of 2026 Decided on: 25.06.2026 Amir Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMPST No.35329/2026 Heard. Documents appended with the application are taken on record. Application to stand disposed of. CWP No. 8918/2026 2. Respondent No.5- Municipal Corporation, Palampur took recourse to the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (in short, the Act) against the present petitioner and respondent No.6 for their eviction from the premises in question. Eviction petition was allowed by the Collector, 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Sub-Division, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. on 24.08.2024 as under:- “Hence keeping in view the averments made herein above, the application of the applicant is accepted and the respondent No.1 Deeksha is free from encumbrance and thus be paid safety deposit of ₹1,50,000/-. Respondent No.2 Amir Chand, found guilty of forceful possession be ordered to pay full rent from 2016 to till date i.e. ₹4,82,354,5/- and 50% of the same amount as penalty and ordered to be ejected from premises. If the respondent did not vacate the shop from the unauthorized possession of the respondent. MC Palampur is authorized to recover an outstanding amount of ₹4,82,354.5/- and penalty of 50% of amount from the respondent as arrear of land revenue.” Petitioner’s appeal against the above order was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division on 21.08.2025. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has now invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Heard and considered the case file. 4. It is an admitted position that Shop No.8, 1st Floor, Tehsil Complex, Palampur, District Kangra was allotted by respondent No.5 to respondent No.6 on monthly rent of ₹1700/- w.e.f 01.10.2003. Petitioner has placed on record rent deed/agreement executed between them. The aforesaid allotment was made by way of open auction conducted on 24.09.2003 wherein respondent No.6 had furnished highest bid of monthly rent @ ₹1700/-. The allotment was for a period of 25 years. Respondent No.6 made last payment of rent to 3 respondent No.5 at ₹2265/- on 30.09.2016. The same day, she also cleared up-to-date arrears of rent amounting to ₹1,61,904/- and made a written request to respondent No.5 about her desire to vacate the premises. In furtherance of this, she requested respondent No.5 to take over physical possession of the shop and to release the security amount of ₹1,50,000/-. This request was accepted by Sub-Division Collector, Palampur on 24.08.2024. The security deposit of ₹1,50,000/- was released in favour of respondent No.6. It however turned out that respondent No.6 had illegally sublet the premises to the petitioner at rent of ₹3,000/- per month under an agreement executed by her with the petitioner on 10.04.2008. It is not in dispute that M.C., Palampur, who is owner of premises was not party to the such agreement. The agreement has been placed on record by the petitioner. To restrain respondent No.5 from taking over the possession of premises, petitioner instituted Civil Suit No.304/2016 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Palampur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid Civil Suit, the petitioner had inter alia prayed for declaration that he is a tenant of the premises under the M.C., Palampur. The Civil Suit was however, dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner still did not vacate 4 the premises, resultantly, M.C, Palampur instituted proceedings under the Act. Both the learned Courts below, did not commit any error in allowing the petition and ordering eviction of the petitioner from the premises. There was no agreement between the petitioner and owner of the premises (respondent No.5) for inducting the petitioner as tenant over the premises. The petitioner had miserably failed to establish any vested right for continuing to occupy the premises. Agreement allegedly executed between him and respondent No.6 did not bind the owner of the premises-the Municipal Corporation. The Civil Suit instituted by the petitoner admittedly, for declaration and injunction that he is tenant under the M.C., stood dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the given facts and circumstance, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. Hence, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 25, 2026 Judge yogesh