- (1.) Smt. Sneh Bansal, the erstwhile evicted tenant (hereinafter referred to as the the petitioner ) of the respondent landlord Puran Chand Shouri in respect of the demised premises comprising SCF No.13, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the interim order dated 25.5.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby her application seeking to restrain the demolition/reconstruction of the aforesaid demised premises during the pendency of the application filed by her under Section 13(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act ) for restoration of the demised premises due to non-occupation by the landlord was dismissed. Further challenge is to the order dated 28.9.2011 (Annexure P-2) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order-Annexure P/1 was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 8.2.2012 had passed the following order:- Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the eviction petition filed by the respondentlandlord on the ground of personal necessity was successful upto the Supreme Court but since he did not occupy the demised premises in terms of Section 13(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short the Act ], therefore, he had moved an application for re-possession in which the petitionertenant had moved an application for restraining the landlord from alienating the demised premises. The said application was allowed and the landlord was restrained from alienating the demised premises. However, when the petitioner-tenant came to know that the landlord is in the process of demolishing and making substantial alterations in the demised premises, she filed an application for restraining the landlord from damaging/ dismantling/demolishing the demised premises which has been dismissed by the learned Court below on the ground that the landlord can make alterations as the demised premises is possessed by him. The bone of contention is as to whether the landlord has occupied the demised premises within the statutory period, if no, whether he can be allowed to change the structure of the demised premises . Notice of motion for 22.02.2012. Dasti only. In the meantime, status quo with regard to the construction/alteration of the demised premises shall be maintained.
(2.) Thereafter, when the case was taken up hearing on 24.2.2012, the following order was passed:- Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate has filed memorandum of appearance on behalf of the respondent and has also placed on record photographs showing that the building does not exist and has already been demolished and part of the basement has also been dug. The said photographs are taken on record. He also contends that the main petition under Section 13(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is still pending before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. Counsel for the petitioner does not deny this aspect. Vide orders dated 17.09.2008, passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, respondent has already been restrained from alienating the site in question. The said stay shall continue, however, the order dated 08.02.2012 of this Court of status quo with regard to the construction/alteration of the premises in question is vacated but as and when the building is complete, the respondent shall not induct any new tenant in the ground floor without the permission of this Court. Adjourned to 09.07.2012.
(3.) At the time of hearing today, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the present revision petition can be disposed of in view of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 24.2.2012 whereby the alienation of the erstwhile demised premises has been ordered to be stayed till the decision of the application filed by the petitioner under section 13(4) of the Act; and further it has been directed that as and when the reconstruction of the erstwhile demised premises is complete, the respondent-landlord shall not induct any new tenant on the ground floor without the permission of this Court.;