Law: Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974

Section: 17A

 Summary

The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his objections in execution proceedings, claiming that after an ejectment order had attained finality, the landlords orally extended the tenancy for 15 years by increasing the monthly rent from Rs. 440,000 to Rs. 600,000. He argued that the landlords accepted the enhanced rent and were therefore estopped from executing the ejectment order.

The High Court held that an oral agreement cannot vary the terms of a written tenancy agreement, especially where the alleged extension itself is disputed. Since the earlier High Court judgment had fixed 30.04.2026 as the date for vacating the premises, any alleged settlement extending tenancy should have been brought before the Court or recorded before the Executing Court. The petitioner failed to do so.

The Court further held that even if an oral extension were assumed, under settled law it would amount only to a month-to-month tenancy, not a fixed 15-year lease. As the petitioner was running an educational institution with over 2,000 students, the Court granted two additional months (until 31.08.2026) to vacate the premises on humanitarian grounds, subject to payment of all outstanding rent. The constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.