Dr. Shashi Aggarwal vs Chandigarh Administration

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This is a petition to quash the orders Annexures P2 and P4 passed by the competent authorities under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation), Act, 1952 and the rules framed there- under. Prayer has also been made to set aside the judgment dated 5.8.1989 passed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of ejectment dated 3.12.1987.

Perusal of the record shows that the initial order of resumption of the property in question was passed by the Assistant Estate Officer u/s 8-A of 1952 Act on the ground of misuse of premises i.e. use of residential premises for commercial purposes under the name and style of M/s Supreme Sales Syndicate.

Though the counsel for the petitioner has not appeared to argue the case on behalf of his client, Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has very fairly informed the Court that by an order passed on 1.4.1997 the Chief Administrator has, on the basis of the statement made by the petitioner and the Law Officer of Chandigarh Administration, rescinded another order of resumption passed by the Assistant Estate Officer. Shri Aggarwal pointed out that as per the order of the Chief Administrator, the premises in question are not being misused. Shri Aggarwal also stated that as per the recent inspection report, the premises in question are being used for residential purposes except one room which is being used for commercial purposes.

Having perused the order dated 1.4.1997 and the inspection report dated 22.7.1988 and taking into consideration the statement made by Shri Aggarwal, we are of the opinion that the order of resumption of the site in question passed by the Assistant Estate Officer on the ground of misuse under the name of M/s Supreme Sales Syndicate cannot be allowed to stand. On the same ground, namely, stoppage of misuse, the appellate and the revisional orders are liable to be set aside. The order of ejectment passed by the Estate Officer exercising the powers under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 on the basis of the order of resumption as well as the judgment of the learned District Judge, Chandigarh dismissing the appeal of the petitioner also deserve to be set aside.

We, therefore, allow the writ petition and quash the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Estate Officer as well as the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities We also quash the orders passed by the Estate Officer u/s 5(1) of 1971 Act. The judgment of the learned District Judge, Chandigarh dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is also set aside. This shall, however, be subject to the condition that the petitioner pays the amount of forfeiture. It is also made clear that the respondents shall be free to take proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of 1952 Act and the rules made thereunder for any other misuse which may be found by the authorities of the Chandigarh Administration.