IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8675 of 2007. [O&M] Date of Decision: 19th July, 2010. Surmukh Singh Petitioner through Mr. R.S.Guron, Advocate Versus U.T.,Chandigarh & Ors. Respondents through Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner impugns the orders dated 29.02.1988, 02.02.1990 and 9.10.1991 [Annexures P1 to P3] whereas the residential Site No. 18, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh was ordered to be resumed and the appeal/revision preferred against the resumption order were conditionally allowed/disposed of. Briefly stated the ground and first floors of the subject house were let out by the petitioner to different tenants and on inspection carried out as late as on 24.07.1991 by the officers of the Estate Office, U.T., Chandigarh, the following misuse was found:- “Ground Floor [i] Garrage portion is being used as Doctor Clinic by Dr. O.P.Dhir; [ii] Front room at Ground Floor is being used as Novel, Magazine, Library and STD Pay Phone has also been installed by Smt. Veena Thapar. First Floor:- [i] In one room at 1st floor, office of Chartered Accountant is being run by one Shri Parabhjit Singh. [ii] In another front room Shri Rajinder Kumar Goel is running the business of Hosiery items [store and sale]”. Consequently, the Revisional Authority – Advisor to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh vide his order dated 09.10.1991 allowed the petitioner's revision petition conditionally in the following terms:- “I accordingly allow three month's time for stopping misuse with regard to running of business of hosiery, STP Pay Phone and a library and in the event of failure to stop these misuse within the stipulated period, the Estate Officer shall be competent to seal the requisite premises. The remaining misuse with regard to running the Doctor's clinic and the office of the Chartered Accountant can, however, continue in view of the communication dated 24th August, 1961 from the Secretary to Government Punjab Capital Project to the Estate Officer Capital Project, Chandigarh till such time a final view is taken regarding running of office by Advocates, Doctors, Chartered Accountant etc. The amount of forfeiture as already imposed shall, however, stand and shall be payable by the tenants who are misusing the premises as referred to above within three months in equal share”. The petitioner thereafter filed eviction petitions against the tenants under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and got them evicted from the demised premises. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner and not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents also that pursuant to the eviction orders passed under the Rent Act, the tenants have vacated the demised premises and the misuse has been completely stopped. It may also be noticed here that the above reproduced order dated 9.10.1991 [Annexure P-3] passed by the revisional authority was accepted by the parties. Since the petitioner has complied with the above- reproduced order and has got the misuse stopped, in my considered view, the resumption proceedings which are the last resort to be taken as a coercive step to prevent the misuse of a premises, deserves to be dropped. The same are accordingly set aside. The allotment/ownership of the subject premises is restored in favour of the allottee, subject, however to entitlement of the respondent authorities to recover the misuse charges under the Rules. It is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner specifying the amount of misuse charges, if any, and the petitioner shall be liable to pay such charges subject to his right to question the assessment of misuse charges. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking by way of affidavit before the Estate Officer to the effect that in future the premises shall not be misused in any manner in violation of the Building Bye-laws. Disposed of. Dasti. July 19, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE