In a significant judgment that will change the way professionals and consultants are allowed to use a part of the residential premises in Chandigarh for professional consultancy, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today made it clear that the permission could not be limited to the owners. Relaxation could be granted to the tenants and occupiers as well.
A Division Bench also made it clear that residents installing STD, PCO, fax or photostat machines in a part of their residences were required to inform the Estate Officer in writing. However, failure to do so would not amount to misuse of the premises.
The ruling by Acting Chief Justice Shiavax Jal Vazifdar and Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa came on a petition filed by GC Dhuriwala. He had challenged the order dated August 19, 2014, passed by the UT Estate Officer reiterating the decision of the UT Administration of imposing misuse charges in the case of a house in Sector 18, Chandigarh. Directions were also sought for the refund of Rs 4,65,813 deposited as misuse charges.
The charges were levied on allegations that a part of the premises was used for running a clinic, and for installing a photostat machine.
During the course of the hearing, the UT claimed that the doctor running the clinic was not the owner. As such, it amounted to a misuse. Moreover, intimation in writing had not been furnished to the Estate Officer on installation of a photostat machine, and the same fell within the expression “misuse”.
Directing the refund of misuse charges after allowing the petition, the Bench observed that clause 3 of the notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration on August 14, 1996, made it apparent that relaxation had been granted to professionals such as doctors and advocates to use a portion of the premises for professional consultancy only.
The Estate Officer, in the impugned order, however, interpreted clause 3 to mean that relaxation could not be invoked in favour of tenants and occupiers, and permission to use a part of the premises was open only to professionals who were the owners of the property.
“Confining the scope of clause 3 to such professionals, who not only are using the premises in question for their residence, but are also owners thereof, would clearly amount to adding something to the provision and thereby restricting the scope and ambit thereof. The same would not be permissible….
“The benefit of clause 3 would extend to all such professionals/consultants to use a part of the premises subject to the maximum extent of area stipulated thereunder and also subject to their using the premises for their own residence. The pre-requisite of being the owner of the premises cannot be imported into clause 3 as has been done by respondent No. 3 while passing the impugned order.”
A Division Bench also made it clear that residents installing STD, PCO, fax or photostat machines in a part of their residences were required to inform the Estate Officer in writing. However, failure to do so would not amount to misuse of the premises.
The ruling by Acting Chief Justice Shiavax Jal Vazifdar and Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa came on a petition filed by GC Dhuriwala. He had challenged the order dated August 19, 2014, passed by the UT Estate Officer reiterating the decision of the UT Administration of imposing misuse charges in the case of a house in Sector 18, Chandigarh. Directions were also sought for the refund of Rs 4,65,813 deposited as misuse charges.
The charges were levied on allegations that a part of the premises was used for running a clinic, and for installing a photostat machine.
During the course of the hearing, the UT claimed that the doctor running the clinic was not the owner. As such, it amounted to a misuse. Moreover, intimation in writing had not been furnished to the Estate Officer on installation of a photostat machine, and the same fell within the expression “misuse”.
Directing the refund of misuse charges after allowing the petition, the Bench observed that clause 3 of the notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration on August 14, 1996, made it apparent that relaxation had been granted to professionals such as doctors and advocates to use a portion of the premises for professional consultancy only.
The Estate Officer, in the impugned order, however, interpreted clause 3 to mean that relaxation could not be invoked in favour of tenants and occupiers, and permission to use a part of the premises was open only to professionals who were the owners of the property.
“Confining the scope of clause 3 to such professionals, who not only are using the premises in question for their residence, but are also owners thereof, would clearly amount to adding something to the provision and thereby restricting the scope and ambit thereof. The same would not be permissible….
“The benefit of clause 3 would extend to all such professionals/consultants to use a part of the premises subject to the maximum extent of area stipulated thereunder and also subject to their using the premises for their own residence. The pre-requisite of being the owner of the premises cannot be imported into clause 3 as has been done by respondent No. 3 while passing the impugned order.”
