1996 JTR(SC) 95
1996 1 CurCC(SC) 178 ; 1996 1 CurLJ 696 ; 1996 2 ICC 415 ; 1996 1 JT 633 ; 1996 PLJ 204 ; 1996 2 RRR 123 ; 1996 1 Scale(SP) 38 ; 1996 2 SCC 151 ; 1996 1 SCR 466 ; 1996 1 Supreme 72301
1996(1) Supreme 723
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
R.C. Chawla -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2343 of 1996
Decided on 12-1-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
If appellant wants to avail of the allotment by HUDA, he must comply with the conditions of allotment, viz., he cannot use allotted residential premises for commercial purpose.
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) Compliance with conditions of allotment is mandatory; allotted premises must not be used for commercial purposes.
Facts of the case:
An appellant obtained residential premises through allotment and was directed to cease commercial use. The appellant submitted an affidavit confirming cessation of commercial use from a specific date, which was communicated to the relevant authorities.
Findings of Court:
The appellant complied with the court's direction to stop commercial use, and the respondents were informed of this compliance.
Issues:
Whether the appellant adhered to the conditions of allotment and ceased commercial use as directed.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the appellant stopped commercial use as mandated and informed the authorities, the impugned resumption order is unjustified.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of, and the impugned order is withdrawn.
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) Compliance with conditions of allotment is mandatory; allotted premises must not be used for commercial purposes.
Facts of the case:
An appellant obtained residential premises through allotment and was directed to cease commercial use. The appellant submitted an affidavit confirming cessation of commercial use from a specific date, which was communicated to the relevant authorities.
Findings of Court:
The appellant complied with the court's direction to stop commercial use, and the respondents were informed of this compliance.
Issues:
Whether the appellant adhered to the conditions of allotment and ceased commercial use as directed.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the appellant stopped commercial use as mandated and informed the authorities, the impugned resumption order is unjustified.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of, and the impugned order is withdrawn.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. As per the orders of this Court passed earlier, if the appellant wants to avail of the allotment, he necessarily has to comply with the conditions of allotment. Consequently, he cannot use allotted residential premises for commercial purpose. The appellant has filed an affidavit verified on January 4, 1996 stating, among other things, thus :
"That as per the order of Honourable Supreme Court of India, I have got the commercial use of my house stopped w.e.f. 2.1.1996.
The above statement is true to the best of my knowledge."
3. The learned counsel for the respondents states that he does not have any information as to what was the action taken by the authorities in that behalf. Shri S.K. Bagga, the learned counsel has shown to the learned counsel for the respondents that the statement also was communicated to the HUDA and the respondents. The respondents are at liberty to verify whether the appellant had stopped use of the premises for commercial use w.e.f. January 2, 1996 and on being so satisfied, they are directed to withdraw the impugned resumption order.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Order accordingly.
*******