Sat Prakash And Another vs Adviser To The Administrator And … on 12 February, 2009

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                 CHANDIGARH


                                C.W.P NO. 2272 OF 2009
                                DECIDED ON : 12.02.2009


Sat Prakash and another
                                            ...Petitioners
          versus


Adviser to the Administrator and others
                                      ...Respondents



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT



Present : Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocate,
          for the petitioners.



SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

In this civil writ petition, the petitioners have two fold

grievances. Firstly, they seek quashing of the order dated

19.11.2008 (Annexure P-12) whereby the recovery of misuse

charges from them in respect of S.C.O No. 83, Sector-46,

Chandigarh, has been upheld by the Appellate Authority. Their

second grievance is that even as per the report of the authorized

officer of the U.T Administration (Annexure P-7), misuser of the

premises stood stopped in October, 2007, yet they have been

compelled to pay the misuse charges till May, 2008. The excess

amount of misuse charges recovered from the petitioners is

allegedly not being refunded to them despite representation

dated 19.01.2009 (Annexure P-13).

C.W.P NO. 2272 OF 2009 -2-

It is also the petitioners’ grievance that in view of Rule

20-A of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules,

1973, these charges were recoverable from the tenants (lessees)

and not from the petitioners who took all possible steps to stop

the misuse of their premises at the hands of the tenants.

Reference is also made to the notice dated 01.09.2008

(Annexure P-11), which according to the petitioners vindicate

their stand and whereby the respondents have called upon the

tenants to deposit the misuse charges amounting to

Rs.9,24,240/-.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at

some length and on perusal of the documents referred to above,

I am of the considered view that the respondents are required to

consider the report Annexure P-7 and thereafter, redetermine as

to whether or not the lessee/occupier of the premises in question

are liable to pay the misuse charges after October, 2007 also.

Respondent No.3 is accordingly directed to take cognizance of the

petitioners’ application dated 19.01.2009 (Annexure P-13) and

dispose of the same in accordance with Rules/law, within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order.

As regards the petitioners’ claim that the misuse

charges are recoverable from the tenants in terms of Rule 20-A

of 1973 Rules, suffice it to say that since recovery proceedings

have already been initiated against the tenants, it is only after
C.W.P NO. 2272 OF 2009 -3-

effecting the recovery that the petitioners can seek refund of the

said charges.

Disposed of.

FEBRUARY 12, 2009                          (SURYA KANT)
shalini                                        JUDGE