Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 561 (PNJ)

Prem Kumar v. Chandigarh Administration

2001-05-18

V.K.BALI

body2001
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - Prem Kumar, a tenant in bay shop No. 44-45, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through present petition filed by him under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes strong exception to orders dated 13.5.1992 (Annexure P-11) and 30.6.1993 (Annexure P-15). In consequence of setting aside the orders aforesaid, it is further prayed that he be permitted to remove the violations which are removable and compound the violations which are compoundable by depositing the composition fee. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition need necessary mention. The premises aforesaid, occupied by the petitioner, were resumed by an order dated 18.1.1990 (Annexure P-8). This order of resumption would normally have vitally affected the landlord Sohan Lal who is now survived by his legal heirs Smt. Amra Wati (widow), Sarvshri Ram Murti, Sardari Lal and Girdhari Lal (sons), who, however, did not move his little finger, as it would be evident from the preceding paragraphs of this order that he wanted the tenant to quite somehow or the other. 3. Constrained under the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner challenged the order of resumption by filing an appeal which was, however, dismissed by the Chief Administrator on 4.2.1992 vide order Annexure P-10. Aggrieved against the order aforesaid, the petitioner carried a revision before the Administrator, which was allowed on 13.5.1992. The operative part of the order passed by the learned Administrator, reads thus :- "After hearing the parties and in view of the eagerness of the tenant to remove the violations which are removable and getting the other compoundable I set aside the impugned order restore the site to the owner/landlord subject to the condition that the violations are set right or get compounded within six months reckonable from the despatch of this order, failing which the impugned order shall become operative. The forfeiture already imposed shall stand paid by the landlord within the aforesaid period of six months. A copy of the order be sent to the landlord for immediate compliance." The part of the order extracted above, reveals that parties were to be communicated the order and it is the landlord who was directed to comply with the conditions mentioned in the order and not the petitioner-tenant. A copy of the order be sent to the landlord for immediate compliance." The part of the order extracted above, reveals that parties were to be communicated the order and it is the landlord who was directed to comply with the conditions mentioned in the order and not the petitioner-tenant. It was further observed in the order aforesaid that the owner/landlord would remove the violation and set the same right and would also get compounded within six months reckonable from the date of the order, failing which the impugned order would become operative. 4. From the bare reading of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the petitioner had no knowledge of the same. It is worthwhile to mention here that in his endeavour to have the possession of premises, landlord filed the petition for eviction primarily on the ground that the petitioner herein had made material changes in the premises under his occupation. The material changes by and large were the same as were objected to by the Administrator while passing the order of resumption. This petition for eviction was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide his order dated 25.4.1989 (Annexure P-6). Thereafter, an appeal was carried against the order aforesaid which was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 13.12.1995. 5. It appears that the petitioner derived knowledge of the order dated 13.5.1992 before the expiry of the period mentioned therein after which the order of resumption was to become operative. He, thus, promptly moved the application (Annexure P-12) on 5.11.1992. The time limit stipulated in the order dated 13.5.1992 was to expire on 13/14th November, 1992. This application came to be hotly contested by the landlord as is clear from the reply filed (Annexure P-13). The petitioner by filing a rejoinder, opposed the stand taken by the owner/landlord. Thereafter, the process took some time before the application (Annexure P-12) came to be disposed of vide order dated 30.6.1993 (Annexure P-15). This application came to be hotly contested by the landlord as is clear from the reply filed (Annexure P-13). The petitioner by filing a rejoinder, opposed the stand taken by the owner/landlord. Thereafter, the process took some time before the application (Annexure P-12) came to be disposed of vide order dated 30.6.1993 (Annexure P-15). The operative part of the order, referred to above, reads thus : "After hearing the parties and going through the record of the Estate Officer, I do find that the former Adviser to the Administrator vide his order dated 13.5.1992 restored the site to the owner/landlord subject to the condition that the violations are set right or got compounded within six months reckonable from the despatch of the order failing which the impugned order was to come into operation. The forfeiture already imposed was allowed to stand and to be paid within a period of six months by the landlord. Even this order was not complied with. Although the order was passed on 13.5.1992 yet the applicant has preferred an application for extension of time limit and accepting the compounding fee after a lapse of six months. No explanation has been given for the delay in filing an application after such a long period. Thus, I do see no reason to interfere with the order passed by my predecessor on 13.5.1992 and as such dismiss the present application." 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order would demonstrate that the same came to be passed on wholly incorrect premises. Six months would have expired on 14.11.1992 and application, which was disposed of by impugned order, came to be filed on 5.11.1992. The application was, thus, within time, as stipulated in the order dated 13.5.1992. The tenant in the application aforesaid had undertaken that he will comply with all the conditions mentioned in the order dated 13.5.1992. There would have been no difficulty in complying with the conditions stipulated in the order aforesaid, as the changes brought about in the premises by the petitioner were minor in nature, contends Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel representing the petitioner. There would have been no difficulty in complying with the conditions stipulated in the order aforesaid, as the changes brought about in the premises by the petitioner were minor in nature, contends Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel representing the petitioner. The landlord on the other hand, it appears to this court, was not interested in getting the order of resumption set aside, as it would suit him either by not complying with the conditions mentioned in the order dated 13.5.1992, thus, resulting into resumption of the site or by filing the eviction petition. It may, however, be recalled that the order dated 13.5.1992 was conveyed to the landlord/landowner and not to the petitioner/tenant. The moment, it came to the notice of the petitioner that some conditions have been stipulated in the order dated 13.5.1992, which came to be passed in a revision preferred by none other than himself, he filed the application aforesaid and undertook that all conditions shall be complied with by him. It is not understandable as to why the Administration did not straightaway allow such a request which was in tune with the directions given by it. The fact that even this application came to be contested by the landlord would leave no one in doubt that he was interested in seeking eviction of the tenant one way or the other. 7. On receipt of application, the tenant could have been permitted to comply with the conditions which should have been the only concern of the Administration. There is no reason that the Administration would have waited for anything else and not passed the order. In any case, as mentioned above, the order came to be passed on totally incorrect facts. Faced with the situation aforesaid, Mr. Goyal, learned Counsel who represents landlord, is unable to urge anything in support of the impugned order. The stand taken up by Mr. Saini, learned Counsel representing the Administration, is no different. He, however, contends that this Court should not straightaway set aside the order and instead remit the same to the Administration to decide the application of the petitioner-tenant de novo. This Court is of the view that this would only delay the matter. This litigation is going on since 1989 when the order of resumption came to be passed, and it should not be delayed any further. This Court is of the view that this would only delay the matter. This litigation is going on since 1989 when the order of resumption came to be passed, and it should not be delayed any further. That apart, this Court has already observed that the Administration had no choice but to pass the order so as to accept the same. The petitioner in this case, was only asking to remove the conditions which were imposed by none other than the Administration itself. 8. In view of the discussion made above, impugned order dated 30.6.1993 (Annexure P-15) is set aside. The writ petition is allowed leaving, however, parties to bear their own costs. 9. Before I may part with this order, I would like to make it clear that because of pendency of this litigation neither the petitioner nor the landlord could comply with the conditions aforementioned and inasmuch as, the petitioner had undertaken to do away with all alterations made in the premises, which had resulted in the order of resumption as also prayed for payment of composition fee, he shall do the same now within a period of three months. In other words, conditions stipulated in the order dated 13.5.1992 shall now be complied with by the petitioner during the period aforesaid, failing which, however, the writ would stand dismissed. Petition allowed.