Case Note & Summary
The matter concerned an appeal before the Supreme Court of India arising from a dispute over an allotment of residential premises, seemingly by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), and the subsequent resumption of that allotment due to commercial use. The appellant, an allottee, had been using the allotted residential premises for commercial purposes, which was in violation of the conditions of allotment. Earlier orders of the Supreme Court had made it clear that if the appellant wanted to avail of the allotment, he necessarily had to comply with the conditions of allotment and consequently could not use the allotted residential premises for commercial purpose. The appellant filed an affidavit verified on January 4, 1996, stating that as per the order of the Supreme Court, he had got the commercial use of his house stopped with effect from January 2, 1996. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that he did not have any information as to what action had been taken by the authorities in that behalf. The appellant's counsel, Shri S.K. Bagga, showed that the statement had been communicated to HUDA and the respondents. The court observed that the respondents were at liberty to verify whether the appellant had stopped the use of the premises for commercial use with effect from January 2, 1996, and on being so satisfied, they were directed to withdraw the impugned resumption order. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. The core legal principle emerging is that an allottee of residential premises must adhere to the allotment conditions, particularly the prohibition on commercial use; if the allottee demonstrates and the authorities verify that the commercial use has ceased, the resumption order must be withdrawn. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the resumption order but instead provided a practical mechanism for compliance and verification, thereby disposing of the appeal in a manner that resolved the dispute conditionally.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Allotment Conditions - Residential Premises Not for Commercial Use - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court recorded that under its earlier orders, the appellant had to comply with the conditions of allotment and could not use the allotted residential premises for commercial purpose. The appellant filed an affidavit stating that commercial use had been stopped with effect from 2.1.96 and communicated this to HUDA and the respondents. The Court directed the respondents to verify the cessation of commercial use and, if satisfied, to withdraw the impugned resumption order - Held that upon verification of cessation of commercial use, the resumption order must be withdrawn (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant had stopped commercial use of the allotted residential premises in compliance with the Supreme Court's earlier orders, and whether the resumption order should be withdrawn upon verification of such compliance
Final Decision
The appeal was disposed of. The respondents were at liberty to verify whether the appellant had stopped use of the premises for commercial use with effect from January 2, 1996 and, on being so satisfied, were directed to withdraw the impugned resumption order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Allottee of residential premises must comply with allotment conditions
- residential premises cannot be used for commercial purpose
- on verification of cessation of commercial use
- resumption order to be withdrawn
