Court relief for traders running business from shop backyard

Providing relief to a large number of shopkeepers, the Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein resumption order passed by the UT Estate Office over misuse of backyard of shops was set aside.

“We see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed,” states the Supreme Court. The petition was filed by the UT Estate Office against the High Court order.

Tenants on the backyard of a shop-cum-flat (SCF) No.13 in Sector 22 filed a petition in the High Court against the order of the Estate Officer dated May 7, 1990, wherein the resumption of the property and the forfeiture of 10% of the price paid was ordered.

The petitioners carried on business of grocery/food-grain from the said premises. They hold a licence as a Fair Price Shop under the Civil Supplies Department of the UT. There were disputes between the petitioners and landlords regarding the tenancy. The petitioners alleged that the proceedings for resumption were initiated at the instance of the landlords with a view to evicting them on the ground that the petitioners were using the backyard by carrying on commercial activities therein, although it was to be used only as a backyard. They merely state that the backyard is permitted for storage purposes only but that the store has been divided into two parts.

According to the UT architectural controls, the first and second floors in these premises are to be used for residential purposes. There is also a backyard, which, unless specified or permitted, was to be used as a courtyard. The Estate Officer proceeded on this basis when it was reported to him that the establishments were running a grocery shop in the backyard.

“The question of resumption, therefore, does not arise. The only question is whether the petitioners should be compelled to discontinue their business. For the reasons already stated, we are of the opinion that there is no misuse,” observed the HC in its judgment passed in August 2017, and quashed the impugned order passed

Continued on page 2