Court relief for GMSH-16 chemist; DHS plea for vacating stay in second case allowed
Chandigarh, December 15
Jaspreet Singh Minhas, Civil Judge, has restrained the Director, Health Services (DHS), UT, from dispossessing the owner of chemist shop number 6 from the Government Multi-Speciality Hospital (GMSH) in Sector16 here on the basis of a show-cause notice issued on September 30 this year, till September 11, 2024 (duration of the lease deed), or during the pendency of the present suit, whichever is earlier.
The court has passed the order on an application filed by the chemist shop owner, Sunil Kumar, through counsel Munish Dewan, for grant of ad-interim injunction.
Dewan argued that in order to frustrate the stay order passed by the court on September 23 this year, on the earlier notice, the Health Department issued second notice for termination of lease on the basis of Clause 20 of the lease deed. The Health Department claimed that the Finance Department notification Dated April 19, 2000, read with amended notification of April 16, 2002, was never applicable to the properties of the GMSH-16 and hence, the contract in itself was void ab initio.
Dewan said if the notification was never applicable, then how did the Finance Department issue letters on each and every occasion with the decision to extend the lease.
After hearing of the arguments, the court stated that the perusal of the orders showed that the shop of the plaintiff was categorised under Category A and therefore, was capable of being covered under the notification. The court stated that the plaintiff filed various documents on record showing that the lease was extended every five years on the recommendations of the Finance Department.
Meanwhile, the court has also allowed an application of the DHS filed through counsel Gagandeep Singh Wasu for setting aside the stay against dispossession of the same chemist shop granted on September 23 this year. The stay was granted in connection with the first notice issued on the grounds that the chemist had allegedly merged the adjacent passage illegally. The court stayed the dispossession of chemist while observing that there was no evidence on record that the department initiated a fact-finding inquiry before coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has demolished the partition wall and encroached upon the passage.
While staying the first notice, a liberty was granted to the defendants to approach the court again after conducting a fact-finding inquiry. The report found that besides causing a humongous financial loss to the exchequer, the plaintiff also encroached upon the adjacent passage and merged it into his shop making his shop almost more than double the size actually leased out to him as per the original drawing issued by the Architecture Department, UT. In the reply, the plaintiff chemist denied all charges.
In the order, the court stated that at this stage, it had become a dispute between a landlord and his tenant and this civil court was not the right forum to decide the said dispute. The fact as to whether the fact-finding report and the show-cause notice dated September 15 were right or wrong could only be adjudicated by the Relevant Rent Authority on the basis of the rent law applicable to the parties.
At this stage, there is nothing on record to show that the show-cause notice was issued to the plaintiff illegally and against the provisions of law.
Accordingly, the present application stood allowed so far as the show-cause notice dated September 15 was concerned and the order dated September 23 stood modified to that extent. The defendants were at liberty to initiate further proceedings with regard to the show-cause notice in accordance with law.
