LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

R.C. CHAWLA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 12-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R.C. CHAWLA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 12, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAJK, JI.] 
Housing : 
Haryana Urban Developmenl Authorit)~Allotment of residential 
C 
pre1nises-Used .for co1nmercial purpose de.fvin!{ 
c:ondition~ยท of 
allotment-Ordered to comp(v with the cnnditiom~HUDA at liberty lo 
ver~fv--{f it is satf3:fie~l that conimercial u.\ยทe is stopped it shall withdraw the 
resu1nption order. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 2343 of 
D 
1996. 
E 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.90 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P .. No. 5576 of 1988. 
S.K. Bagga and Ms. S. Bagga for the Appellant. 
I.S. Goyal and Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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 : 
"Thal as per the order of Honourable Supreme Court of India, I have 
got the conunercial use of my house stopped w.e.f. 2.1.96. 
The above statement is true to the best of my knowledge." 
H 
The learned counsel for the respondents states that he does not have 
466 
R.C. CHAWLA v. STATE 
467 
any inforn1ation as to what was the action taken by the authorities in that 
A 
behalf. Sri 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 stopp6d use of the premises for commercial use w.e.f. January 
2, 1996 and on being so satisfied, they are directed to withdraw the 
B 
impugned resumption order. 
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 
G.N. 
Appeal disposed of.