CWP No.15983 of 2006 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15983 of 2006 Date of decision: January 31, 2009. Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) v. Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bhinder, Advocate for respondent(s) No.2. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner-Corporation is aggrieved at the order dated 18.11.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda in exercise of his powers as Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 whereby respondent No.2 – the allottee of industrial shed has been permitted to make payment of the arrears of the allotment price amounting to Rs.3,63,418/- as on 31.10.2005 along with interest @ 12% per annum. Respondent No.2 was allotted industrial shed No.E-15 in the Industrial Focal Point, Bhatinda on 99 years lease-hold basis vide the CWP No.15983 of 2006 -: 2 :- allotment letter dated 21.8.1978. The shed was later on changed from E-15 to E-22 and its possession was handed over to respondent No.2 on 17.10.1978. According to the petitioner-Corporation, respondent No.2 started defaulting in payment of the balance installments after paying 10% of the allotment price. The respondent-allottee, on the other hand, has been accusing the petitioner-Corporation of not executing the lease-deed which might contain the schedule for payments. It is not in dispute that due to non-payment of the balance amount that the lease was cancelled and eviction proceedings were initiated against respondent No.2. An eviction order was passed by the Collector under the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, which, on appeal has been set aside by the appellate authority. It would be apposite to reproduce the following observations made by the appellate authority in its order under challenge:- “The Corporation has taken stand throughout even before this Court while passing remand orders dated 21-8-2002 that lease deed has not been executed/registered between the parties and hence only allotment letter may be taken into consideration while deciding the matter. If we strictly go by allotment letter the first installment was to be paid on the 3rd anniversary of the execution of the lease deed. Obviously in this case lease deed has not been executed. Then from which date 3rd anniversary was to be accounted was a matter of confusion between the parties. There is draft lease deed available in the file which shows that it was submtited by the allottee to the Corporation. There is CWP No.15983 of 2006 -: 3 :- nothing on file as to why it was not got executed/registered and as to why some amount was accepted and possession was delivered to the allottee by the Corporation without execution/registration of lease deed. Further after submission of draft lease deed it was incumbent upon the Corporation to intimate the allottee about the execution/registration of lease deed. The appellant has produced letter dated 14-3-1978 vide which the Corporation has intimated the allottee that the lease deed is in order and will be executed shortly. Though this letter pertains to another case yet similar practice is expected to be adopted in each and every case. After issuance of such letter if the allottee again failed to get the lease deed executed/registered then he can be blamed or held responsible. But in the instant case not even a single notice has been issued by the Corporation to the allottee asking him to execute the lease deed. Again it was incumbent upon the Corporation to cancel the allotment at that stage. Non-execution/registration of lease deed is lapse on the part of both the sides and only one party cannot be blamed or held responsible for the same. Further in this case allotment has been cancelled by the Chief Engineer whereas as per the version of learned counsel for the appellant only the MD, PSIEC is competent person to cancel the allotment. Learned counsel has quoted case Piare Lal Bansal vs. PSIEC in which it has been held by the CWP No.15983 of 2006 -: 4 :- Civil Court that Chief Engineer is not competent to cancel the lease deed. Learned counsel for Corporation has failed to rebut this objection. Under these circumstances we have to deal with this case as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the allottee has been making payments as per allotment letter. Therefore eviction of allottee would not be justified and when eviction is not justified there is no question of damages.” It would be seen that both the parties have been negligent in one way or the other. While the Corporation failed to execute the lease- deed wherein the payment schedule could have been prescribed, respondent No.2 also took full advantage of the situation and stopped making the due payments. In the facts and circumstances, the direction issued by the appellate authority for restoration of thelease-hold rights on payment of the balance amount of Rs.3,63,418/- by respondent No.2 along with interest @ 12% per annum, being fair and reasonable, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, is right in contending that the Corporation had levied Rs.10,000/- as restoration charges and there is no justification for the appellate authority to deduct those expenses. Similarly, he points out that more than Rs.10,000/- have been incurred by the Corporation towards the legal/sundry expenses. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, though no case to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.11.2005 is made out, however, the petitioner-Corporation is justified in urging that respondent No.2 is liable to pay the restoration CWP No.15983 of 2006 -: 5 :- charges as well as the expenses incurred by the petitioner in the litigation to which it has been dragged. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to make the payment of Rs.3,63,418 + 10,000 + 10,000 = Rs.3,83,418/-, along with interest @ 12% per annum which shall be calculated till 31.12.2008, within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that in case respondent no.2 fails to make the aforesaid payment, the resumption/cancellation order of lease-deed shall stand revoked. Dasti. January 31, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge