V.K.BALI, J. - (1.) PREM Kumar, a tenant in bay shop No. 44-45, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through present petition filed by him under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes strong exception to orders dated 13.5.1992 (Annexure P-11) and 30.6.1993 (Annexure P-15). In consequence of setting aside the orders aforesaid, it is further prayed that he be permitted to remove the violations which are removable and compound the violations which are compoundable by depositing the composition fee.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition need necessary mention. The premises aforesaid, occupied by the petitioner, were resumed by an order dated 18.1.1990 (Annexure P-8). This order of resumption would normally have vitally affected the landlord Sohan Lal who is now survived by his legal heirs Smt. Amra Wati (widow), Sarvshri Ram Murti, Sardari Lal and Girdhari Lal (sons), who, however, did not move his little finger, as it would be evident from the preceding paragraphs of this order that he wanted the tenant to quite somehow or the other. Constrained under the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner challenged the order of resumption by filing an appeal which was, however, dismissed by the Chief Administrator on 4.2.1992 vide order Annexure P-10. Aggrieved against the order aforesaid, the petitioner carried a revision before the Administrator, which was allowed on 13.5.1992. The operative part of the order passed by the learned Administrator, reads thus :- "After hearing the parties and in view of the eagerness of the tenant to remove the violations which are removable and getting the other compoundable I set aside the impugned order restore the site to the owner/landlord subject to the condition that the violations are set right or get compounded within six months reckonable from the despatch of this order, failing which the impugned order shall become operative. The forfeiture already imposed shall stand paid by the landlord within the aforesaid period of six months. A copy of the order be sent to the landlord for immediate compliance." The part of the order extracted above, reveals that parties were to be communicated the order and it is the landlord who was directed to comply with the conditions mentioned in the order and not the petitioner-tenant. It was further observed in the order aforesaid that the owner/landlord would remove the violation and set the same right and would also get compounded within six months reckonable from the date of the order, failing which the impugned order would become operative.
(3.) FROM the bare reading of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the petitioner had no knowledge of the same. It is worthwhile to mention here that in his endeavour to have the possession of premises, landlord filed the petition for eviction primarily on the ground that the petitioner herein had made material changes in the premises under his occupation. The material changes by and large were the same as were objected to by the Administrator while passing the order of resumption. This petition for eviction was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide his order dated 25.4.1989 (Annexure P-6). Thereafter, an appeal was carried against the order aforesaid which was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 13.12.1995.;