Civil Writ Petition No. 2145 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.2145 of 2007 Date of decision: 4.11.2008 Krishan Lal ....Petitioner. Versus Chandigarh Administration and others ....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present: Mr.S.K.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Lisa Gill, Advocate, for the respondents. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of orders dated 1.6.2004 (Annexure P-3), dated 2.11.2004 ((Annexure P-4), dated 2.3.2005 (Annexure P-5) and dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by Assistant Estate Officer, U.T.Chanidgarh, Joint Secretary Finance Chandigarh Administration, exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator and Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, respectively. Briefly the facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that the petitioner was allotted a built-up booth No.225, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, on lease hold basis vide allotment letter dated 26.12.1996, on a premium of Rs.70,500/- with ground rent of Rs.1763/-. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the petitioner was required to pay remaining 75% of the premium in Civil Writ Petition No. 2145 of 2007 [2] three annual equated instalments, along with the interest and ground rent. The petitioner was also required to execute the lease deed. The petitioner failed to pay the due amount of instalments and ground rent in time as per schedule given in the allotment letter. The Estate Officer issued show cause notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, sufficient opportunities of being heard as well as to deposit the due amount of instalments and ground rent were granted to the petitioner but he neither paid the outstanding amount nor he was able to produce any cogent reason for non payment of instalments and ground rent. Therefore, having no other option left, the Estate Officer cancelled the lease of the booth vide order dated 1.6.2004. Aggrieved by the order of Assistant Estate Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before Joint Secretary Finance, Chandigarh Administration, ( exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator), which was dismissed vide order dated 2.11.2004. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition before Advisor to the Administrator, who, on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner, set aside the order of Chief Administrator and a direction was issued that in case the petitioner deposits the entire outstanding amount by 31.3.2005, the site in question shall stand restored, failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall become operative. The petitioner partly complied with the order passed by Advisor to the Administrator and deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide demand draft dated 30.3.2005. Since the order of respondent No.1 was not wholly complied with, the petitioner filed an application before Advisor to Administrator for extension of time on 13.4.2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.7.2006. The Estate Officer initiated Civil Writ Petition No. 2145 of 2007 [3] eviction proceedings under Section 4 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ( for short, 'the Act') and eviction of the petitioner from the site in question was passed under Section 5 of the Act. The orders passed by the authorities are under challenge in the present writ petition. Mr. S.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that forfeiture of the right of property for minor violations or breach of terms and conditions is against the letter and spirit of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court reported in Rampuri v. Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh AIR 1982 P&H 301. It has also been argued by Mr.Jain that respondents have sufficiently fortified themselves and as they charge simple interest after adding the same while working out the amount of three equated instalments and further charge of interest is penal in nature and as such the respondents are charging penal/additional interest from the petitioner in case of delay in payment, which is illegal and arbitrary. Written statement on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 has been filed which is on record. Ms. Lisa Gill, learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that booth in question was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1996 and after depositing of 25% of the earnest money, petitioner did not deposit the dues as per allotment letter. The allotment was cancelled by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of the Estate Officer) vide order dated 1.5.2004. The petitioner was afforded 13 opportunities to deposit the outstanding amount of instalments and current rent but the same was not deposited. The order of cancellation was rightly upheld by the appellate authority but Civil Writ Petition No. 2145 of 2007 [4] the revisional authority had restored the site subject to the condition that the petitioner would deposit the entire outstanding amount by 31.3.2005 failing which the order of the Estate Officer would become operative. The operative portion of the order passed by revisional authority is reproduced as under: “ After hearing the parties and keeping in view the undertaking given by the petitioner, I hereby set aside the impugned order, restore the site to the owner subject to the condition that the petitioner will deposit the entire outstanding amount by 313.2005 failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall become operative.” It has further been argued by learned counsel for respondents that the petitioner did not make payment of the entire amount in spite of several opportunities granted and being a persistent defaulter, bona fide of the petitioner is not genuine at this stage to challenge the order dated 12.7.2006. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Teri Oates Private Limited v. Chandigarh Administration 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 540, wherein the following observations were made: “ We may, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay down a law that the statutory right conferring the right of the respondent should never be resorted to. We have merely laid down the principle giving some illustrations where it may not be used. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that if the intention of the allottee Civil Writ Petition No. 2145 of 2007 [5] is dishonest or with an ill motive and if the allottee does not make any payment in terms of the allotment or the statute with a dishonest view or any dishonest motive, then Section 8-A can be taken recourse to.” The learned counsel further relied upon another judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 12968 of 2006 (M.C.Chandigarh and others Vs. Vipin Kumar Jain) decided on 20.9.2007. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: “ ........In the present case there was no illegality in the holding of auction. Despite repeated notices issued to the respondent calling upon him to make payment, respondent failed to pay within the stipulated period. Despite repeated indulgence being shown to the respondent by the competent authorities payments were not made. Property prices increase by the day and if within stipulated period contractual obligations are not fulfilled then in that event the State suffers losses which cannot be compensated in terms of interest or penalty after four years. Ultimately auction is an exercise for detecting or discovering the price prevalent in the particular area in a particular year and if time overruns are to be allowed on flimsy excuses for not paying the money in time then the entire exercise would fail. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court should not have interfered in the process in which the Corporation was fully justified and entitled to forfeit 10% of the amount and to invite fresh offers on new terms and conditions......” We have heard arguments of learned counsel for parities and have perused the documents on record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has lost his claim up to the appellate authority and the revisional authority restored the site subject to the condition that the outstanding amount was to Civil Writ Petition No. 2145 of 2007 [6] be deposited by 31.3.2005 but in spite of that the petitioner did not deposit the said amount. When the amount was not deposited the application for extension of time by the same authority was dismissed. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner was granted 13 opportunities and the revisional authority granted an additional opportunity but the same was not availed of by the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner is not relevant to the facts of the present case as the counsel for petitioner has not been able to make out a case of sympathetic consideration as the last opportunity was granted by the revisional authority and the petitioner did not avail of that opportunity to deposit the amount. The bonafide of the petitioner is not genuine as he has failed to deposit the balance amount after depositing only 25% of the premium. For the reasons recorded above and in view of the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. (UMA NATH SINGH) (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE JUDGE 4.11. 2008. raghav