LPA No. 96 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 96 of 2011 Date of decision:- 21.01.2011 M/s Bombay Cloth House through its authorized signatory Sh. Rakesh Gupta son of Sh. Tilak Raj, SCO No. 30, Sector 20-C and D, Chandigarh. ......Appellant Vs The Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Chief Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and others. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J. (ORAL) The Chandigarh Administration had decided to allot certain sites in Sector 20-C and D to wholesale cloth merchants. This was way back in the year 1983. Applications were invited for allotment of sites by notice dated 29.05.1983. Clause 6 of the terms and conditions mentioned in the said notice is in the following terms:- “6 That allottee shall vacate the present premises and cannot hand over to his relative or other who carry on the same business.” The appellant-firm was allotted SCO No. 30 in Sector 20- LPA No. 96 of 2011 2 C and D by allotment letter dated 22.05.1985 which, inter-alia, included the following condition:- “16(b) You shall shift from the present premises immediately after the completion of the building for which a site in the wholesale cloth market has been allotted and shall not hand over the present premises to your relatives or others who carry on the same business and may claim for allotment of a plot in the wholesale cloth market at any stage.” Though initially the appellant-firm had submitted an affidavit undertaking to vacate its existing premises i.e SCO No. 17 in Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, subsequently, it refused to do so. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 20.04.2004 was issued and after an opportunity of personal hearing, the Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh passed an order dated 14.06.2006 cancelling the appellant's allotment of SCO No. 30 in Sector 20- C and D. The said order has been affirmed in appeal as well as revision and also by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. Learned Counsel for the appellant-firm contends that as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter the appellant-firm was required to shift only its wholesale business to the newly allotted site and the said Clause did not require the appellant-firm to close its other business (retail) in the earlier site i.e. SCO No. 17, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh. It is also urged that the order of cancellation virtually amounts to an order of eviction of the appellant-firm from the earlier premises i.e. SCO No. 17 in Sector 17-E. Any such eviction can only LPA No. 96 of 2011 3 be ordered under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 by following the prescribed procedure. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept either of the contentions advanced. Clause 16(b) is categorical in its terms and requires the present premises of an allottee to be vacated upon allotment of a new site in Sector 20-C and D. The hair splitting distinction between wholesale and retail business sought to be made by the appellant-firm, if accepted, would virtually defeat the object of the scheme. In so far as the contention with regard to eviction from the premises i.e. SCO No. 17, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh is concerned, what we find is that by the impugned orders only the cancellation of the allotment of SCO No. 30 in Sector 20-C and D, Chandigarh has been made. No question of eviction from the earlier site i.e. SCO No. 17, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh would arise in the facts of the present case. The LPA, therefore, is found to be wholly without merit and substance. It is accordingly dismissed. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 21.01.2011 Amodh