The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for notice and opportunity to be given to the occupant before passing an order of resumption, as it affects the rights of the tenant.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - (i) Can an authority order the resumption of property for misuser without notice to the tenant, who is in occupation of the premises ?

(ii) Should an order of resumption be sustained despite the fact that the alleged misuser does not subsist ?

These are the two questions that arise for consideration in these two petitions. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

2. The property in dispute is Shop-cum-Office No. 1027, Section 22-B, Chandigarh. It was initially allotted by sale to Smt. Ram Piari. That was in or about the year 1970. Bishamber Dass, petitioner in C.W.P. No. 15796 of 1993 was tenant on a part of the ground floor. The other part had been let out to M/s Naresh Departmental Store, viz. the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 16235 of 1993. The Assistant Estate Officer alleged that Bishamber Dass was misusing the premises by running a restaurant therein. The site was meant for "general trade." Proceedings for resumption were initiated. On July 27, 1976 the Assistant Estate Officer passed an order under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, for resumption of the site on account of the breach of the terms of conveyance. He also ordered forfeiture of 10 per cent of the price of the plot.

3. Smt. Ram Piari transferred the site by sale and it is now owned by respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in C.W.P. No. 16235 of 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the landlords). The order of resumption was challenged by the landlords. On July 26, 1978 the Chief Administrator accepted the appeal. Two conditions were imposed. The misuser was ordered to be stopped by December 31, 1978. The amount of forfeiture had to be deposited by August 31, 1978. The landlords filed a revision petition to complain against the amount of forfeiture. Vide order dated August 17, 1979 the Chief Commissioner reduced the amount to Rs. 5400/-. The deposit could be made by October 31, 1979. The misuser had to be vacated by August 31, 1980.

4. The landlords had difficulty in getting the misuser by Bishamber Dass being stopped. Presumably, to gain time, they sought a review of the order. The Chief Commissioner vide order dated February 7, 1983 directed that the misuser be stopped within six months. The misuser, however, did not stop. On April 21, 1979 the Estate Officer issued a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unathorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act). An order of eviction was passed on December 6, 1988. It was upheld by the District Judge vide his order dated December 2, 1993.

5. The above sequence of events shows that Bishamber Dass having failed to stop the misuser, the order of resumption was passed. The misuser having continued, the Estate Officer and the District Judge ordered the eviction of the two tenants, viz. Bishamber Dass and M/s Naresh Departmental Store. Aggrieved by these orders, the two tenants had filed the two petitions.

6. In the meantime, the landlords had initiated proceedings against Bishamber Dass for eviction. On September 2, 1978 the tenant had given an undertaking before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, that he would discontinue the misuser by December 31, 1978. The petition was, accordingly, disposed of. Fresh proceedings for eviction on account of change of user were initiated on January 22, 1979. After about two years the Rent Controller vide his order dated January 19, 1981 accepted the petition and ordered the eviction of Bishamber Dass. He appealed. It was accepted by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated February 14, 1982. The landlords challenged the order through Civil Revision No. 644 of 1982. Mercifully, after a lapse of 17 years, it was allowed by an order dated October 1, 1999. The tenants Petition for Special Leave (Civil) No. 17565 of 1999 was dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on February 7, 2000.

7. These facts have been given by the counsel for the par