In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 7045 of 2011 Date of Decision: 28.9.2012 Munni Devi ... Petitioner Versus Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others ... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik. Present: Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.K. Gupta, Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh/respondents. Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) On 4.5.1993, the petitioner was allotted a built-up booth bearing No. 151 in Sector 15-D, Chandigarh. The booths were allotted to resettle the occupants of handcart licensees operating in Rehari Market of that sector. As per the allotment letter, the booth was allotted against a price of ` 36,400. It is a case of the petitioner that after getting possession of the booth in dispute, she had deposited some amount towards instalments. To the contrary, it is stated that after getting possession of the booth, nothing was paid by her towards instalments. The Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, issued a notice for cancellation of the lease of the booth and it actually was cancelled vide order dated 30.5.2007 (Annexure P1). The petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed by the competent authority on Civil Writ Petition No. 7045 of 2011 2 30.7.2008 (Annexure P2). It is also not in dispute that by initiating proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) possession of the booth was taken over by the respondent-department. The petitioner filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed vide order dated 7.4.2010 (Annexure P4). Hence, this writ petition has been filed, wherein it is prayed that the above said orders be quashed. A further prayer has been made that liberty be granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount due and the lease of the booth be restored to her. By filing an affidavit, it is stated by the respondents that when its officers went to take possession of the booth, in terms of the order, referred to above, one Joginder Singh was found operating therefrom. The above fact was controverted by the petitioner by filing an affidavit whereupon a counter affidavit was filed by Rahul Gupta, Assistant Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh on 2.3.2012, stating therein that Joginder Singh had categorically stated that he was running the business from the booth since from March, 1995 and was sharing the profit with the allottee. It is further stated that the said Joginder Singh filed an appeal against the order of cancellation of lease on 20.8.2007, which was dismissed on 26.8.2008. Aggrieved with the said order, he went in revision which was also dismissed on 15.7.2009. To show that said Joginder Singh was agitating the matter, stating that he was in possession of the booth in question, documents (Annexures R1 to R6) were also placed on record. It has also come on record and as mentioned by the Appellate Authority, despite issuance of notices to the Civil Writ Petition No. 7045 of 2011 3 petitioner, she failed to make payment of the amount due, therefore, the lease was cancelled. It is on record that after getting possession of booth, towards 75% of the amount due, not even a single penny was paid by the petitioner. When show cause notices were sent to her in the year 2002 even then she failed to do the needful. We feel that the orders, so passed, were perfectly justified. There is nothing on record to show that any error in law has been committed by the competent authority when order of cancellation of lease of booth was passed. Not only as above, the booths in Sector 15- D, Chandigarh were built-up to rehabilitate the handcart licensees who were working in the Rehari Market. Once it has come on record that the petitioner handed over possession of the booth in question to somebody else, the very purpose has been defeated, therefore, no compassion can be shown to her. Dismissed. The demand draft, which was deposited by the petitioner under order of this Court with the respondents, has been returned today to her counsel in the Court itself. $ (Jasbir Singh) Judge $ (Rameshwar Singh Malik) Judge September 28, 2012 “DK”