CWP No.14340 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.14340 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.08.2010 **** Bombay Cloth House . . . Petitioner VS. UT Chandigarh & Ors. . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 14.06.2006 (Annexure P4) passed by the Estate Officer, UT Chandigarh, cancelling allotment of SCO No.30, Sector 20 C & D, Chandigarh, as well as the orders dated 29.04.2009 and 18.05.2010 (Annexure P5 and P6, respectively), dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and revision petition against the above-stated cancellation order (Annexure P4). (2). On the representation of Chandigarh Wholesale Cloth Association, the Chandigarh Administration decided to allot certain sites in Sector 20-C & D, Chandigarh to the wholesale cloth merchants and CWP No.14340 of 2010.doc - 2 – pursuant thereto, it invited applications for allotment of the said sites vide public notice dated 29.05.1983 (Annexure P1). The sites were decided to be allotted on 99-years leasehold basis subject to certain terms and conditions including:- “6. That allottee shall vacate the present premises and cannot hand over to his relative or other who carry on the same business.” (3). The petitioner-firm also applied and was allotted SCO No.30, Sector 20 C&D vide allotment letter dated 22.5.1985 (Annexure P2) on the prescribed terms and conditions including clause 16(6) to the following effect:- “16(b) You shall SHIFT from the present premises immediately after the completion of the building for which a site in the whole sale 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 whole sale cloth market at any stage.” (4). Clause 17 of the allotment letter stipulated that “in the event of default, breach or non-compliance of the any of the conditions of lease, the lease may be cancelled and the site/building resumed.” CWP No.14340 of 2010.doc - 3 – (5). It may be mentioned here that at the time of above- stated allotment at a concessional rate, the petitioner was running its wholesale and retail cloth business in SCO 17, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh. It was obvious that after construction of the allotted site the petitioner was also required to shift to the newly allotted site. In fact, even before the allotment of the new site on 22.5.1985, the partner of the petitioner-firm gave an affidavit to the Chandigarh Administration dated 09.06.1983 undertaking to vacate the present premises and not to hand over its possession to their relative so as to run the same business. Having found that the petitioner did not comply with the above-stated condition and was still running its business in SCO No.17, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh that the show cause notice dated 20.04.2004 (Annexure P3) was served and after considering the petitioner’s reply followed by several opportunities of personal hearing, the Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh exercising the powers of Estate Officer, passed the impugned order dated 14.06.2006 (Annexure P4) cancelling the petitioner’s allotment of SCO Site No.30, Sector 20-C&D, Chandigarh after observing as follows:- CWP No.14340 of 2010.doc - 4 – “………In view of the facts and circumstances, it is clear that lessee company, M/s. Bombay Cloth House has not vacated the earlier premises i.e. SCO No.17, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh which was required to be vacated by them as per the scheme as well as the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Thus, it is established that lessee company has violated the terms and conditions of allotment letter and therefore, I, Amit Talwar, PCS, Assistant Estate Officer (Exercising the powers of Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh) hereby cancel the lease of SCO Site No.30, Sector-20C&D, Chandigarh (CPL-4185) with immediate effect as last report.” (6). The petitioner went in appeal wherein it took the plea that while wholesale business of cloth had already been shifted to Sector-20 C&D, only retail business was still being run in the showroom in Sector 17. The afore-stated plea was found to be factually incorrect as the officials of the Estate Officer on inspection found that the petitioner was still doing the business of wholesale as well as retail in the Sector 17 showroom. The Appellate Authority accordingly passed a conditional order granting 60 days’ period to the petitioner to shift its business to the newly allotted site failing which the same would stand cancelled. (7). The petitioner went in revision and conceded that it had not shifted its entire business to the allotted site in Sector 20-C&D. Accordingly, the revisional CWP No.14340 of 2010.doc - 5 – authority turned down the petitioner’s revision petition after holding that :- “After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the Estate Officer after issuing show cause notice and affording number of opportunities to the petitioner rightly cancelled the lease of the site in question. On appeal the Chief Administrator has given 60 days time to vacate the premises but the petitioner again failed to comply with the order of the Chief Administrator. As per condition No.16(b) of the allotment letter the petitioner has to be shifted from present premises to the allotted site in the wholesale cloth market and in this regard the petitioner had filed an affidavit dated 9.6.1983 to the effect that M/s. Bombay Cloth House shall vacate the present premises and will not handover to the relatives or others who carry on the same business. Since the petitioner failed to comply the terms and conditions of the allotment. I see no justification to give any relief to the petitioner and while upholding the order of the Estate Officer, dismiss the present petition being devoid of merits.” (8). Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. (9). At the outset, the petitioner was asked as to whether it was still willing to shift to the allotted site? Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, expressed its inability to do so. He has accordingly been heard at some length and the record perused. CWP No.14340 of 2010.doc - 6 – (10). It is urged that in terms of clause 16(c) of the allotment letter, the petitioner was required to shift only the wholesale business to the newly allotted site which does not mean the closure of its business in Sector 17’s Showroom also. It is argued that the impugned order in a way tantamount to the petitioner’s eviction from Sector 17 showroom where the petitioner is a tenant and such an action can be taken by the Rent Controller only under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It is also contended that the respondents have no authority to give any diktat to the petitioner in respect of the Showroom in Sector 17 as the said site has not been allotted by them. (11). In my considered view none of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner carry any weightage or merits acceptance. (12). The issue involved pertains to the petitioner’s entitlement to retain the SCO Site No.30 Sector 20- C&D, Chandigarh allotted at a concessional rate. Admittedly, the said site was allotted subject to the terms and conditions contained in the public notice (Annexure P1) read with those recited in the allotment letter (Annexure P2) which in no uncertain CWP No.14340 of 2010.doc - 7 – terms require the petitioner and other wholesale cloth merchants to close down their business at the scattered places and shift to the dedicated wholesale cloth market exclusively developed for them. (13). The very object of creating an ‘exclusive wholesale market’ stands defeated if the petitioner or other cloth merchants are allowed to run their business in the existing sites and also simultaneously take advantage of the concessional rate of allotment in the newly floated market. The respondents have not passed any eviction order in respect of the tenanted premises occupied by the petitioner in Sector 17. The impugned orders nowhere compel the petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises in Sector 17, Chandigarh. If the petitioner wishes to retain and run its business in that premises, it simply attaches disqualification for retention of the new site allotted on certain conditions. The petitioner’s plea that only the retail business is being run in Sector 17 or that it has shifted the wholesale business in Sector- 20C&D cannot be accepted for the reason that on factual verification the authorities have found otherwise and such like finding of fact warrants no CWP No.14340 of 2010.doc - 8 – interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (14). For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 13.08.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE