CAPTAIN GURMEET SINGH PUNIA Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to restore site No. 97-P, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh, to the petitioner by quashing the order dated March 25, 1992 passed by the Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, a copy of which has been annexed herewith as Annexure P1.

(2.) BRIG . Joginder Singh Punia (deceased), father of the petitioner, was allotted site No. 97P, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh, over which he constructed residential H.No. 502, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh). As Brig. Joginder Singh Punia was serving in the Army and he did not require the building for his personal use and occupation he let out the same to Gurdial Singh Virk (respondent No. 3) for residential purposes in June 1981 by executing a lease deed. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 sublet the building to one Naresh Kumar (respondent No. 4), who changed the user thereof and started running a Guest House in the said building. Brig. Joginder Singh Punia was murdered on May 30, 1988 and his son Capt. Gurmeet Singh Punia (present petitioner) became his successor on the basis of a Will dated August 10, 1970. The petitioner started ejectment proceedings against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the ground of subletting and change of user. The ejectment petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Rent Controller. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 contested the ejectment order upto the High Court. However, they could not be successful in getting the ejectment order quashed.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the change of user, if any, was not within the control of the petitioner. The petitioner has shown his sincerity in filing ejectment petition against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the ground of change of user. The ejectment order was allegedly passed by the Rent Controller on July 25, 1998 against respondent No. 4. Ultimately, the petitioner had to file the revision petition in the High Court, which was allowed and the executing Court was directed to put in operation the order dated July 25, 1998 passed by the Rent Controller. The Counsel has also placed reliance on a Division Bench authority of this Court reported as M/s Naresh Departmental Chandigarh v. The Chandigarh Administration and others, (2001-1) Punjab Law Reporter 314 : 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 195 (P&H). It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the misuse of the premises in dispute as guest house does not exist any more. On the basis of these contentions, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated March 25, 1992 passed by the Adviser to the Administrator (Annexure P1) be quashed and the possession of the premises in dispute restored to the petitioner.