JASMER KAUR Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed to quash the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the power of the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on the ground of misuse of residential premises. The petitioners have also challenged the orders passed by the appellate and the revisional authorities.

(2.) Although the petitioners have raised several grounds to challenge the impugned orders it is not necessary to deal with them. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 379 and 380 of 1992 has filed affidavits of Shri Dwarka Nath, partner of M/s Handa Agencies and Shri Sham Lal Bansal. In his affidavit, Shri Dwarka Nath stated that the basement of the disputed premises, which is in its possession, shall not be used for sale of Melamine/Plastic goods after six months ending on 15.3.1999. In his affidavit, Shri Sham Lal Bansal has stated that he has stopped storage of medical appliances in the tenanted premises and he will not use portion in his possession for commercial purposes. In view of the undertakings given by two of the three petitioners, we deem it proper to quash the orders of resumption.

(3.) As far as petitioner Jasmer Kaur is concerned, it is an admitted fact that she is using the tenanted premises for the purpose of consultation as a Homoeopath. Therefore, her case deserves to be considered by the administration in the light of the revised policy framed for the purpose of use of residential premises.