Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar Verma And Others vs U.T. Chandigarh And Others on 12 February, 2013
Author: Amol Rattan Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Amol Rattan Singh
CWP No.5666 of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5666 of 2002
Date of Decision : February 12, 2013
Krishan Kumar Verma and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh and others ...... Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present : Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents.
**** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J The petitioners, all belonging to one family, as per parentage given in the array of parties, have filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order dated 11.02.1994 (wrongly mentioned as 01.02.1994 in the prayer clause) (Annexure P-2), passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh (exercising the power of Estate Officer), vide which the site/building No.7, Sector 21-A Chandigarh, belonging originally to the petitioners' father, was resumed on the ground of misuser since 1980. The appeal filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who was their late father, (one Shri Pawan Kumar Verma), was also dismissed by Chief Administrator, Chandigarh Administration, on 27.10.1998 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the revision petition filed by the said late Shri Pawan Kumar CWP No.5666 of 2002 2 Verma was conditionally allowed by the revisional authority, i.e. the Adviser to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, subject to the condition that the misuser would be stopped within four months of her (Advisors') order dated 11.10.2000 (Annexure P-6).
The petitioners' contention, as is also reflected in the order of the revisional authority, is that the tenants in the property were misusing the same, on account of which Shri Pawan Kumar Verma had filed civil suits and a rent petition against the tenants. It was on account of these civil suits/petitions having been filed, that a time of four months was given to the father of the present petitioners to stop the misuser.
The petitioners have further contended that, at one point of time, the misuser had stopped, on account of the pending civil suits or otherwise, but it again restarted. Some compromise was reached in the rent petition, by which one of the tenants who was misusing the premises, bound himself down to vacate the same on or before 30.12.1999. The rent petition was accordingly disposed of on 09.04.1999 by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, binding down the parties to their statements given in court with regard to the terms of compromise.
When the tenants still did not stop the misuser, petitioner No.1, who had stepped into the shoes of his late father by that time, filed a contempt petition bearing COCP No.196 of 2000 in this Court, against the said tenant, on grounds of violations of the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 09.04.1999 (Annexure P-13). Execution application was also filed for execution of the order dated 09.04.1999. CWP No.5666 of 2002 3
After noticing the terms and conditions of the compromise in detail, as also the statements recorded in Court by the tenant and the petitioners' father (landlord), the learned Single Judge held the tenant in contempt and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also subjected him to a fine of `2,000/-, vide order dated 29.11.2001 (Annexure P-14).
In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also filed an application on 17.05.2001 before the Adviser to the Administrator (revisional authority), for enlargement of time for removal of the misuser. However, vide order dated 27.06.2001 the said application was dismissed on the ground that it amounted to a review of the earlier order dated 11.10.2000 and with no statutory powers of review, the revisional authority bound herself to dismissing the said application.
Thus, it is all these orders, dated 11.02.1994, passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, 27.10.1998 passed by the Chief Administrator in appeal, 11.10.2000 and 26.06.2001 passed by the Adviser (revisional authority) that have been challenged in this petition.
While issuing notice on 08.04.2002, a Division Bench of this Court had restrained the respondents, Chandigarh Administration, from dispossessing the petitioners from the premises in question in view of the fact that, in the meanwhile, ejectment proceedings under the Public Premises Act had also been initiated, obviously on the ground that once the resumption order had become final, the property reverted back to the State and had thus become public property.
CWP No.5666 of 2002 4
In the reply filed by the respondents, the factum of misuser on account of leasing the property out to a driving school, an architect's office and a printing press, have been stressed upon. It has also been stated that the owner (petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest) had deliberately leased it out to persons for using the premises as above mentioned and, as such, the leasing out of the premises was not for residential purposes and the misuser could not have been attributed to the tenants alone.
Respondents have thus defended the order of resumption citing the case of HUDA Vs Roochira Ceremics, 1997 (2) PLR 512, to state in the reply that it is only the legality of the proceeding before the Estate Officer that can be looked at and not subsequent acts, in order to give an equitable order. As such, it is pleaded, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Chief Administrator. The written statement further states that the revisional authority was remiss in granting further time of four months, as there was no illegality in the order of resumption.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the misuser has long since stopped and as such the resumption order should be set aside and the property should be restored to the petitioners, in view of the fact that every possible effort was made by them/their father (predecessor-in- interest) to get the tenants, who were misusing the property, ejected therefrom. The misuser having now stopped has been confirmed by Shri Sanjay Kaushal, learned Senior Standing counsel for Chandigarh Administration. Nevertheless, he has reiterated the submissions made in the pleadings.
CWP No.5666 of 2002 5
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. No doubt the misuser of the premises in question, was not possible without the active knowledge of the petitioners, inasmuch as, a printing press, a driving school and an architect's office were being run there. However, we are not inclined to agree with the submissions made by Shri Kaushal, in view of the fact that the order in revision, dated 11.10.2000, specifically stated that :-
"Although misuse is continuing, yet the petitioner has taken steps to remove the misuse by filing the civil suits/petition against the tenants. In view of this, the prayer of the petitioners for affording some time to remove the misuse is justified. I, therefore, grant the prayer, set aside the impugned order, restore the site to the owners subject to the condition that the misuse in the premises is removed within four months from the despatch of the order, failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall become operative".
The forfeiture of 10% of the allotment price, which was part of the resumption order, was ordered to stand and payment of the same was ordered to be made, vide the same order.
Thus, the order of resumption was set aside by the revisional authority on 11.10.2000, albeit conditionally, giving four months time to remove the misuser. This quasi judicial order has never been challenged by the Respondent Administration.
The question eventually before us is, whether, after the passing of this order, the petitioners are at fault, in continuing the misuser, after they had taken steps to ensure that the tenants who were misusing the premises were ejected? In other words, after setting aside of the resumption order by CWP No.5666 of 2002 6 the revisional authority, do the petitioners deserve extension in time in order to show that the misuser is stopped, which extension was refused on account of lack of jurisdiction by the said revisional authority, for implementing the earlier orders of the same authority? In our view, this question would have to be answered in the affirmative because the petitioners have obviously made every effort within their power to ensure that the misuser was removed, even well before the setting aside of the resumption order by the revisional authority, who had set it aside upon seeing that such steps had been taken by them (petitioners).
The contention of the respondents that the revisional authority was amiss in doing so, does not appeal to us at all, in view of the fact that the said order dated 11.10.2000, has never been challenged by the Administration.
In view of the above, we are inclined to grant the relief sought and to enlarge the time given by the revisional authority vide order dated 11.10.2000, till such time as the misuser was actually removed as a consequence of legal proceedings initiated by the petitioners against the tenants.
This writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the orders of the Assistant Estate Officer dated 11.02.1994 (wrongly written as 01.02.1994 in the prayer clause), the order in appeal dated 27.10.1998 and the order dated 27.06.2001 passed by the revisional authority are quashed. The order of the revisional authority dated 11.10.2000 is read down to the extent that the time period granted for removal of the misuser, instead of the four months given in the said order, is enlarged up to the time when the misuser was CWP No.5666 of 2002 7 actually stopped on account of the legal proceedings initiated by the petitioners and their predecessor.
Consequently, the proceedings under the Public Premises Act, for eviction of the petitioners from the premises, are also quashed.
No order as to costs.
( AMOL RATTAN SINGH ) ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE JUDGE
12.02.2013
Anand