The petitioners had carried on commercial activities in a residential building. The Court found that the petitioners had stopped these activities and shifted them elsewhere, rendering the eviction-related petition infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP NO.16171 of 2006
DATE OF DECISION: October 16, 2006
Dr.S.C.Aggarwal and another
….Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
…..Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA
PRESENT: Shri Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).
The petitioners were concededly carrying on the commercial activities in a residential building in which they were not residing. Consequently, an eviction order has been passed qua the petitioners.
Shri Pritam Saini, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has informed the Court that the petitioners have since stopped the commercial activities in the building and have even shifted the commercial activities from the residential premises.
In these circumstances, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly.
However, if the commercial activities have been stopped in the residential premises, then the petitioners or the owner of the
CWP NO.16171 of 2006
-2-
residential premises may approach the competent authority for restoration of the site, in accordance with law.
(Viney Mittal) Judge October 16, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla) KD Judge
Dr. S.C. Aggarwal and another
State of Haryana and others
Viney Mittal
H.S. Bhalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
