D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) In these two referred Letters patent Appeals Nos. 101 and 102 of 1977, the significant question of law, which is common to both, that falls for determination is as to whether a tenant of a building regarding which en order of resumption is sought to be passed under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is entitled to be heard before an order of resumption is made thereunder and further whether the tenant can be considered to be a party aggrieved against the resumption order and thus entitled to file an appeal under Section 10 of the Act.
(2.) Before proceeding to consider the proposition posed above, it may be useful to have a few facts relevant to each letters patent appeal. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 101 of 1977, the appellant tenant too was furnished with a copy of the show-cause notice sent to his landlord. Faqir Chand, respondent No. 3, requiring him (the appellant-tenant) to prefer his objections, if any. The Estate Officer, vide his order dated 5th November, 1973, Annexure P-2, resumed the building which, in this case, is a house which has put to an impermissible use by the appellant-tenant. The appellant-tenant, however, did not challenge order Annexure p-2 in appeal. In due course, he was sought to be evicted from the premises and was served with a show-cause notice under the Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; (hereinafter referred to as the Eviction Art) and, ultimately, an order under Section 5 of the Eviction Act. Annexure p-3, was passed against the appellant-tenant on 26th March, 1974. He did not challenge this order as well in appeal and, instead of challenging it in appeal, straightway approached this Court on the writ side through Writ Petition No. 1452 of 1974. The learned single Judge dismissed his petition holding that he had no right to be heard before an order of resumption was passed under Section 8-A of the Act and that he having not availed the alternative remedy of appeal against the order passed against him under Section 5 of the Eviction Act, the petition was barred in view of clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) In Letters patent Appeal No. 102 of 1977, unlike Letters Patent Appeal No. 101 of 1977, the appellant-tenant was not furnished with a copy of show-cause notice issued to his landlord Major Bhagwant Singh, respondent No. 3. The appellant-tenant had, however, in this case challenged in appeal the order of resumption dated 18th December, 1973, Annexure P-2, but his appeal was dismissed by the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, vide his order dated l5th April, 1974, Annexure P-3. Again unlike the appellant-tenant in Letters patent Appeal No. 101 of 1977, the appellant-tenant herein had availed his right of appeal against the order, Annexure P-4, passed against him on 19th March, 1974, under Section 5 of the Eviction Act. However, his appeal met with no success, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh, on l6th April, 1974, Annexure P-5, which led him to file Civil Writ petition No. 1419 of 1974, impugning therein the orders, Annexures P-2 to p-5. The learned single Judge dismissed his petition on the ground that he, as a tenant, had no right to challenge the order of resumption, Annexure P-2, and Annexure P-3 and since the learned single Judge did not concede to the tenant, the right to challenge the order of resumption, he ruled that there was no reason to set aside the order of eviction, Annexure P-4, and Annexure P-5 as well.;