Viney Mittal, J.

1. Notice of motion to the respondents.

2. On the asking of Court, Shri Atul Nehra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Shri Anupam Gupta, Senior Standing counsel for the Chandigarh Administration.

3. The building in question belonging to the petitioner was ordered to be resumed on account of violations in construction.

4. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have also been rejected. It further appears from the record that proceedings under the Public Premises Act have also been decided against the petitioner and eviction order has been passed. During the course of arguments today, an affidavit dated july 17, 2006 has been filed by the petitioner. The said affidavit is taken on record.

5. In the aforesaid affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the entire building which is in possession of different tenants and that the petitioner ahs got removed all the non-sanctionable building violations from the tenants as detailed in the order of the Chief administrator, UT, Chandigarh dated August 16, 2002 and as mentioned by the Assistant Estate Officer in his order also. It has been specifically stated that there is no building violation as on today.

6