DHANWANT KAUR Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of Site No. 46(P), Sector 9A, Chandigarh, which is now numbered as House No. 64, Sector 9A, Chandigarh. The said plot was allotted in the name of the petitioner by the Respondents on 27/04/1955, and a conveyance deed, as prescribed in Schedule 8 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Rules made thereunder, was also executed between the parties. The petitioner had constructed a house on the plot. Clause 9 of the Conveyance deed which was executed between the parties, is in the following terms :-

(2.) In view of the alleged violation of the provisions of Section 8A of the Act, the Estate Officer, Respondent No. 3, on 26/08/1982 passed an order of resumption of the site on ground that the house which was meant for residential purposes was being used by the Haryana Government, as an office. Feeling aggrieved by the order of resumption of the Estate Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before Respondent No. 2 - Chief Administrator-cum-Finance Secretary, Union Territory. While disposing of the appeal on 29/05/1984, Appellate Authority made the following observation :-

(3.) It is further alleged in the petition that though a very short period had been given by the Appellate Authority to get the misuser stopped, yet the petitioner left no stone unturned to get misuser stopped within the stipulated period. She filed a petition under the Rent Restriction Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity as well as misuser and also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the tenant (Haryana Government) from using the building as an office. The said civil suit, which was brought about in the year 1984, was dismissed by the trial Court on 11/12/1986, mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to place on record the order, which showed that the building was ever resumed by the Estate Officer or that it was later on conditionally restored by the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh. The petitioner remained unsuccessful in the appeal before the Additional District Judge, who vide his decision dated 20th Nov. 1989 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition under Section 13A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction, Act, as applicable to Union Territory, Chandigarh, that she being the wife of a retired Government official, was entitled to the possession of the house from the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The said ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller on 1st Nov. 1989 and two months' time was granted to the tenant (Haryana Government) to vacate the premises in dispute. Since the tenant had not vacated the premises the petitioner took out execution and after obtaining warrants of possession, got the possession of the premises in dispute through the Bailiff on 15/01/1990. The report of the Bailiff has been attached as Annexure P4 to this petition, which shows that the possession of the entire premises, excepting two rooms, was delivered to the petitioner on 15/01/1990.