Allowed

Ganesh Karyana Store & Anr. v. U.T. Chd. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2009CWP/6073/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants challenged resumption orders under the Public Premises Act. The Court held that since violations leading to eviction were removed and one partition issue is sanctionable, the basis for resumption vanished. The writ was allowed, resumption orders quashed, and parties directed to submit revised plans.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned resumption orders set aside; parties directed to submit revised building plans within one month.

Ganesh Karyana Store & Anr. Vs U.T. Chd. & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.W.P NO. 6073 OF 1995

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P NO. 6073 OF 1995 DECIDED ON : 21.04.2009

¶5

Shanti Devi Goyal and others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

U.T Chandigarh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

Present : Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶14

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders Annexures P-1, P-3, P-5 to P-7, whereby the shops occupied by them as tenants have been resumed. The petitioners also seek quashing of the proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

¶16

Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioners are in occupation of SCF No. 70-71, Sector -15/D, Chandigarh. The above-mentioned premises was originally owned by one Ranjit

¶17

C.W.P NO. 6073 OF 1995

¶18

-2-

¶19

Kaur-respondent No.3, who has since died and is being now represented by one Rajesh Verma on the basis of a Will allegedly executed in his favour. Suffice it to say that the impugned resumption orders were passed by the authorities for the Chandigarh Administration on the ground of violations/misuse of the premises by the occupiers. One of the ground for resumption was that the SCF has been partitioned by the allottee and some more alterations in violation of the sanctioned building plan have been made.

¶20

On January 29, 2009, when the matter came up for hearing, the following order was passed by this Court :

¶21

“ It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners (tenants) as well as learned counsel for the respondent (landlord) that out of the three violations, two have already been removed whereas the third one (partitioning of the premises) is compoundable.

¶22

As prayed for by Mrs.Lisa Gill, learned counsel for the Chandigarh Administration, adjourned to 21.04.2009, to enable her to get the premises inspected and thereafter file a status report”.

¶23

In deference to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the respondents has handed over the Inspection Report dated 20.04.2009 submitted by one Mr. Ram Lal Sharma, Junior

¶24

C.W.P NO. 6073 OF 1995

¶25

-3-

¶26

Engineer to the following effect :

¶27

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

¶28

(1) Open to sky portion in rear court Not exists at site yard covered with G.I sheets (removed)

¶29

(2) Mezamine floor on ground floor Not exists (removed) (3) Shop is divided in two parts Which is sanctionable by RBP.

¶30

(4) Barsati area covered with G.I. Removed by the sheets owner. Nothing exists.

¶31

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the revised building plan has already been submitted for sanctioning the partition of the premises as is presently permissible under the Rules.

¶33

The fact that the division of premises in two parts is sanctionable, is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.

¶34

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the impugned orders perused.

¶35

Having regard to the fact that three violations which led to the passing of the impugned resumption orders have since been removed by the petitioners and respondent No.3 and one of the violation is presently sanctionable also, I am of the considered view that the very basis of the resumption orders has disappeared. By now it is well settled in a catena of judgments that the resumption is the severest penal action to be taken as a last resort only when the allottee is hell bent not to remove the

¶36

C.W.P NO. 6073 OF 1995

¶37

-4-

¶38

violations, if any. In the case in hand, though the petitioners and respondent No.3 have removed the violations after passing of the resumption orders, however, the fact remains that before the matter could be taken up for final disposal, those violations have been voluntarily removed.

¶39

As regards the partition of the premises, which is now permissible under the Rules, it is directed that the petitioners and/or respondent No.3 may submit the revised building plans/requisite applications and the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same within one month, subject to payment of permissible fee/penalty, if any provided under the Rules.

¶40

For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned resumption orders are set aisde. It is, however, clarified that Rajesh Verma-present respondent No.3 has been brought on record as legal heir of Smt. Ranjit Kaur, vide order dated 06.05.2008 only for the limited purpose of pursuing the present proceedings and without prejudice to the rights of other legal heirs. Similarly, the Estate Officer, Chandigarh is not precluded from holding any inquiry with regard to genuineness or title of the alleged owner of the premises.

¶41

Disposed of.

¶42

APRIL 21, 2009 shalini

¶43

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

Ganesh Karyana Store & Anr. v. U.T. Chd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Karyana Store & Anr. v. U.T. Chd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Garg Impex Ltd. Vs Pb. Financial Corp

Virpal Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sham Sunder Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mewa Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

The Mangat Coop Labour &Construction Society Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajesh Mittal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.