HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of all the aforesaid writ petitions as common questions of law and facts are raised in these petitions. However for facility of reference, the facts are taken from CWP No. 2027 of 2000.
(2.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order of resumption passed by the Assistant Estate Officer on 12.8.1998 (Annexure P-30) inter alia on the ground that petitioner has not vacated SCO No. 618, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh even after allotment of Site No. 11, Sector 20-C and D, Chandigarh vide allotment letter dated 22.5.1985. Such order was affirmed in appeal by the Chief Administrator vide order dated 12.1.1999 (Annexure P-31) and later by the Adviser to the Administrator on 29.12.1999 (Annexure P-33).
(3.) The question as to whether an occupier, who has been allotted site in the wholesale cloth market in Sector 20-C and D is liable to vacate the tenanted premises in Sector 22, Chandigarh, came up for decision before the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 19654 of 2008, decided on 27.10.2014 titled as 'M/s S.S. Traders and another v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others. It has been held that consequent to allotment of the site in a wholesale cloth market in Sector 20-C and D, the tenant cannot be said to be unauthorized occupant of the building in his possession as tenant and the building is not liable to be resumed. It was held as under :- "We find that condition No. 16(b) is in respect of entitlement of a plot in the Wholesale Market to a person engaged in the business of whole sale cloth. It is evident from the fact that condition No. 16(b) of the allotment contemplates that the possession shall not be handed over to any of the relatives who carry on the same business and "may claim for allotment of a plot in the Whole Sale market any stage". We find that the tenant who is in occupation of a site is expected to use the premises for any of the permissible purposes. The shop in Sector 22 now can be used for any General Trade except that the tenant cannot carry any prohibited trade. A tenant cannot be forced to vacate the premises only for the reason that an alternative plot is being allotted for a specified category. After the amendment in the Regulations on 31.03.2006, all trades are permitted in SCO No. 821, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh and also in SCO No. 22, Sector 20-C and D, Chandigarh. Even if the occupant of shop in Sector 22 happens to be the relative of the petitioner but the restriction in clause 16(b) is for the allotment of another plot to a relative. It does not prohibit the occupant to carry any permissible business. The Administration has and cannot have any right to prohibit any person to carry on the permissible activities in the site allotted to a person or in occupation of a tenant. We also find that no such restriction can be imposed that a person who is being allotted a plot will hand over vacant possession of the site in his possession to the owner even in face of the protection available to him under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The only requirement is that the old premises should not be used for the Wholesale Cloth business. The inspection report produced by Mr. Sharma carried out on 17.10.2014 shows that Sulekh Chand Jain is using the site for the sale of Ladies suits which is actually not the same or the similar as the Wholesale Cloth business. Since the site in SCO No. 821, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh is being used for the permissible use and so is the site in SCO No. 22, Sector 20-C and D, Chandigarh, we find that the order of cancellation of lease is not sustainable and consequently, the order dated 04.01.2006 and the orders passed in appeal and revision are set aside." ;