AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUBSTITUTION, as prayed for, is allowed.
THIS special leave petition is against an order of the High court dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High court, in our view, was right in rejecting the petition because the relief sought was the enforcement of a promise alleged to have been made by the owner of the building in question to accommodate the petitioner by providing him with an alternative accommodation. Whether or not any such promise was made or, if made, whether it was enforceable is a question which is not capable of being agitated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner had also in the writ petition in the High court sought relief against the Urban Land Ceiling Authority which had deleted a provision to the effect that an alternative accommodation would be given to the petitioner in the newly constructed building.
FROM the facts stated in the writ petition, it is clear that the relief sought in the High court was enforcement of a promise allegedly made by the owner of the building. Any such promise, assuming it has been made, is a matter which can be agitated by means of a civil suit. We are told that such a suit is pending.
IN the circumstances, the special leave petition challenging the impugned order of the High court made under Article 226 of the Constitution is unsustainable and is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice to whatever right the petitioner has arising from the alleged promise of the landlord or the deleted condition which had been originally imposed by the concerned authorities. This is a matter on which we express no view and it is open to the petitioner to pursue it before the appropriate forum.