D.S. Tewatia, J.
1. The sole question that falls for determination in this letters patent appeal is as to whether the action of the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2, in resuming the site in question on which house No. 1515 at Sector 18-D in Chandigarh stands constructed and thereafter ordering the eviction of the tenant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Eviction Act), is discriminatory in character and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in that, as against the States of Punjab and Haryana, which also happened to run guest houses in the residential buildings of Chandigarh as does the tenant, no such action had been taken by the Estate Officer.
2. The proposition posed above has to be approached in the light of facts which are not in dispute that house No. 1515 at Sector 18-D in Chandigarh was owned by Mr. F. S. Multani who had leased out the same to Mohinder Singh tenant. The tenant started running a paying guest house in the said premises naming the same as the 'Capital Paying Guest House Chandigarh'. The site was resumed on the ground that running of a paying gust house amounted to a violation of the terms of sale of plot as it had been transferred by the Union of India, respondent No. 1, to the said owner for residential purposes only. The tenant had challenged the order of the Estate Officer, passed under Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in appeal under Section 10 of the Act. The Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, dismissed the appeal of the appellant on merits. The eviction order passed under Section 5 of the Eviction Act was similarly challenged in appeal which was dismissed on merits. Neither before the learned single Judge whose order is under challenge in this appeal nor before us, the decision of the appellate authorities under Section 10 of the Act or under Section 5 of the Eviction Act has been challenged on merits.
3. To the averments is the petition that the Estate Officer had allowed the Governments of Punjab and Haryana to use residential buildings as official guest houses while he had taken action against the tenant and his landlord for putting a residential building to an identical use the reply on behalf of the Union Territory Administration was that the official west houses were meant for officers and no profit motive being involved, the use of the residential buildings in such a case would not tantamount to the residential buildings being used for business or commercial purposes while in the case of private guest houses the reason for running them as such was to earn livelihood and such a use tantamounted to the use of the residential buildings for business purposes. The learned single Judge appeared to accept the aforesaid distinction sought to be highlighted in the return of the Union Territory Administration and held that the guest houses of the States of Punjab and Haryana being run by them did not fall in the same category as that of the private guest house being run by the tenant and, therefore, the respondent had not discriminated against the tenant or other persons falling in that category.
4. I do not think it was open to the learned single Judge, or is open to us in appeal, to entertain a submission the acceptance whereof would adversely affect the parties which were not before the Court. The factum whether the Punjab or the Haryana Government were or were not using the residential buildings which they occupied otherwise than as residential buildings, had first to be gone into by the authority which was competent to take action under Section 8-A of the Act. The data which the respondent-Union Territory Administration in its reply has furnished regarding such guest houses may not be the facts which the Punjab and Haryana Governments would be prepared to endorse, for they might have come forward with other facts, which could sway the decision one way or the other, if they had been a party to the writ petition.
5. If a citizen feels that he is entitled o make a grievance against the owner or lessee of a building, who happens to be putting that building to an impermissible use, he may move the authority which is competent to take action under Section 8-A of the Act and if such authority does not take any action, then, perhaps, he can seek a writ of mandamus if he can prove the factum of misuse and his right to redress. But no one, who is found to have put a building to an impermissible use and against whom a legal order under Section 8-A of the Act is passed and his appeal under Section 10 of the Act had been dismissed on merits, can be heard to say that some persons who, according to him, were making similar misuse of residential houses, were not proceeded against and so, against him also no action under Section 8-A of the Act ought to have been taken and if-such an action was taken against him, that would be a discriminatory one violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
6. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same but make no order as to costs.
S.C. Mital, J.
Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.
I too agree.