Ranjit Singh, J.@mdashThe action of petitioner, State Bank of Patiala, to approach this Court through present writ petition for permitting it to carry on business of banking from the residential premises in Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar, would sound not only inappropriate but an illegal approach as well. A Bank approaching the Court, seeking permission to continue business in violation and by misuse of the residential premises would sound unacceptable. One could expect the owner of the premises to make such unfair and unreasonable approach for using the residential premises for commercial purposes but a Bank, which has all the resources at its command, would act to approach the Court for such a misuse is highly unjustified. Satnam is the owner of House No. 457, Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar. The petitioner, State Bank of Patiala, was earlier running its Branch from House No. 301, Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar since 19.10.1983. Satnam Singh leased House No. 457, Ground Floor, to the petitioner Bank in October 2005. The petitioner Bank since then has shifted to House No. 457, where it is carrying on its banking business activities. Satnam Singh, owner of the house, had filed an application before Municipal Corporation for change of user but his application statedly has not been decided so far.
2. The Municipal Corporation issued a notice u/s 269(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act to the petitioner Bank and owner of the house (Satnam Singh) on 19.6.2006. The petitioner filed reply on 23.6.2006. Satnam Singh, owner, filed an appeal against the said notice in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.
3. Reference is made to a writ petition filed by one Sanjay Malhotra before this Court by way of public interest, seeking writ of mandamus directing official respondents to ensure that all commercial establishments run by the respondents from the residential premises located in Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar be removed forthwith. Satnam Singh, owner of the house from where the petitioner Bank is running, was also impleaded as respondent No. 16. Petitioner Bank is impleaded as respondent No. 7. The Municipal Corporation filed a written statement and is alleged to have contested the claim made in the said writ petition. This petition was pending adjudication, when the petitioner approached this Court. In the meanwhile, Satnam Singh withdrew his appeal, which he would attribute to the fact that similar controversy was under consideration in the writ petition filed by Sanjay Malhotra as referred to above. Respondent No. 3, Municipal Corporation, has directed the closure of banking business being run from House No. 457 vide its order dated 16.6.2011. This is termed as totally illegal and arbitrary order and the Bank has accordingly filed this writ petition.
4. While issuing notice of motion, operation of this order was stayed on 4.7.2011.
5. Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 3 is filed, to which the petitioner has filed replication.
6. In the written statement filed, respondent No. 3 has raised a preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of this writ petition. It is pointed out that the petitioner would have a remedy of filing appeal before District Judge. In fact, the owner of the house had filed an appeal, which he has got dismissed as withdrawn. Plea, therefore, is that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this sole ground.
7. Otherwise also, it is stated that the present petition is an abuse of process of law. The notice was issued on 23.6.2006 for stopping commercial use of residential building, against which owner, Satnam Singh, had filed the appeal, as already noticed. This appeal remained pending for five years, when it was withdrawn. Thereafter, the order dated 16.6.2011 was passed to stop the commercial use of residential building. The petitioner Bank submitted an undertaking on 20.6.2011, copy annexed as Annexure P-9, stating therein that the Bank be granted six months time for making an alternative arrangement for shifting the Branch. This period expired on 19.12.2011. This is an additional ground pleaded in the reply to pray for rejecting the prayer of the Bank as raised in the present writ petition.
8. During the pendency of this writ petition, Civil Writ Petition No. 385 of 2006 filed by Sanjay Malhotra has been disposed of by this Court on 29.3.2012. This Court had noticed the status report, which was filed in a connected Writ Petition No. 7104 of 1998, showing that the road on which the commercial establishments were doing their business in violation of the norms have been declared commercial. Since the road on which the house of the petitioner in the said writ petition was situated was declared as commercial, no grievance was found to have been left with the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
9. Highlighting the above order, the petitioner would contend that the notice issued to the Bank would also have to go now as the road on which the house is located is declared commercial. This fact is seriously disputed by counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, Municipal Corporation. He has referred to master plan of Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1 to point out that only a ring road, which is 120 ft. in width shown in the plan has been declared commercial. The house of the petitioner is located much away on a different road, which is an internal one and is 60 ft. wide. The location where the petitioner Bank is running its business is also indicated with the help of a square block darkened in black colour. This is certainly far away from a ring road and on a different road, which has not been declared as commercial. The petitioner Bank, therefore, can not get any advantage of the order passed in the writ petition or declaring the different road in the area to be a commercial road.
10. I find that the conduct of the petitioner Bank is not appropriate and rather is a mischievous one. The tenant would have no right to seek any declaration for declaring the premises occupied by him to be commercial or seek the change of land user, unless he has the concurrence of the landlord/owner. The owner has not approached this Court. The only approach, which the owner had made, was to file an appeal before the Additional District Judge, which he withdrew after a period of over five years. The Bank was then served with a notice and so appeared before the respondent-Corporation and only sought time to make an alternative arrangement. It would not behove on the part of petitioner-Bank now to turn around and make the present approach, seeking change of user of this premises or to claim any right to continue to carry out commercial activities from residential area.
11. The submission that this is for the benefit of public would not impress me in any manner. A business being run from premises and that too of banking would be a cause of serious nuisance to the residents of that area. The Bank would have sufficient resources to make an alternative arrangement. It is the owner, who has to seek the change of user but he has not made any move in this regard. The petitioner-Bank seems to be fighting a battle on behalf of the owner, which action can not be appreciated. A public bank can not be behave like a normal litigation and ought to abide by the law and the legal provisions. The attention of the counsel for the Bank was also invited to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, directing that all those residential premises, which are being used for commercial purpose be sealed. The use of residential premises for commercial activities is certainly unwarranted, illegal and uncalled for. In fact, the respondent-Corporation or the official respondents ought to ensure that the people living in the residential areas are able to live with peace and enjoy their residential abode without any nuisance. Use of such premises for commercial purposes is impermissible under law. Such a prayer in the writ petition and that too at the instance of Bank is not only unheard of but is uncalled for. I find no merit in the writ petition and would dismiss the same.
