PETITIONER: R.C. CHAWLA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/01/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION: 1996 SCC (2) 151 JT 1996 (1) 633 1996 SCALE (1)SP38 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
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. 2.1.96.
The above statement is true to the
best of my knowledge.”
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.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.