BAHADUR SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenability of a rejection of a prayer for reviewing a resumption order is the subject of challenge in this writ petition. The impugned order dated 27.06.2005 repulsed the plea of the petitioner for restoration of the site over which the petitioner has put up a multi-storeyed construction. The resumption had been ordered originally on the ground that the petitioners' tenant had put the property for a commercial use when the allotment had been only for a residential purpose and by such conduct of the tenant, the property had been directed to be resumed as early as on 04.05.1976. The petitioners had preferred an appeal and revision successively but the original order was retained. Between the order of resumption made in the year 1976 and a claim for reviewing the decision that was rejected on 27.06.2005, there are many an event that are worthy of note for addressing the issues involved in the case.

(2.) The petitioner was a transferee of free hold 10 marlas plots on which the petitioner had raised a 2-1/2 storeyed building described as House No. 1293 in Sector 21-B, Chandigarh. The ground floor of the property was rented out to one Sukhpal Singh and Narinder Pal Singh for residential purpose and the remaining portion of the building had been retained by the petitioners for their own residential living. The contention of the petitioners was that the tenant was apprised of the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act of 1952 and warned the tenants against any kind of user which was against the original terms of the allotment of the plot. It appears that the tenant has set up a dairy under the name and style of Baba Dairy without the permission of the petitioners and just as the landlord was initiating action against the tenant, the Chandigarh Administration also treated the change of user as constituting a ground for resumption. The tenant was just not a single individual who has making such a change of user but there were a host of others who were doing the same profession in dairy and dairy products in residential zones and they had brought to bear sufficient political clout to stall action for eviction. The petitioners' action for ejectment of the tenant before the Rent Controller for change of user of the premises had been dismissed on 04.02.1978 on a technical plea which by the time the eviction action was in progress held a position of law that the legal heirs of a tenant would not be treated as a tenant under the East Punjab Restriction Act. It was a situation where the original tenant had expired and it was a statement in defence by the persons in possession that there was no privity of contract between the landlord and the sons of the original tenant. The petitioners had to accept the verdict of the Court and wait for the administration to take appropriate action. The petitioners had themselves approached the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration by their letter dated 18.11.74 to help the petitioners by removing the misuse of the property by the legal heirs of the original tenants. An order of resumption was quickly passed by the administration on 04.05.1976 and action was also taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act of 1971, in the year 1977. The action was initiated only against the tenants of the petitioners since they were the persons in possession and this was also done only at the behest of the petitioners and to secure to them their possession after abating the misuse by the tenant. An order of eviction had also been passed on 20.03.1978.

(3.) However, the tenants were making a common ground along with several other dairy operators by forming themselves as an association called the Creamy and Dhodi Union to increase their bargaining power and stall the administration from putting the order of eviction. They were reported to have made a representation through their Union on 30th March 1978 to the Finance Secretary not to evict them and the latter himself, by his order dated 26.04,1978 stayed the eviction proceedings in supersession of the earlier order passed by the Appellate Authority on 20.03.1978. It was in purported consideration of relocating all the daily operators to some other place and not to precipitate the issue by causing the eviction of the tenants and this is evident from the fact that the letter of the Finance Secretary contains an endorsement in the following words: