R.S.A. No. 1025 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1025 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.12.2008 The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and another ...Appellants. Versus S.R. Bhatia ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the appellants. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, affirming that of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad dated 13.12.2005, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was decreed. Sans unessentials, the facts as per the plaintiff are that he was owner in possession of Kiosk No.201 having an area, measuring 9.09 sq. yards, Sector-14 Market, Faridabad which was allotted to him by the defendants in an auction for a sale consideration of Rs.1,36,000/- vide allotment letter dated 1.10.1991. It was pleaded that he deposited R.S.A. No. 1025 of 2008 -2- a sum of Rs.13,600/- at the time of acceptance of the bid and had paid another sum of Rs.20,400/- as per terms of allotment letter No. 3173 dated 1.10.1991. The remaining amount of Rs.1,02,000/- was to be deposited in lump sum without interest within a period of 60 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter or in 10-half-yearly instalments. It was further pleaded that the possession of Kiosk was to be delivered on payment of 15% after providing all the amenities and facilities but since no civic amenities were provided by the defendants and as the commercial activity was being undertaken in the residential premises, the business in the market including that of the plaintiff was adversely affected. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.2 issued a show cause notice dated 18.7.1997 under Sections 17 (1) and 17 (2) of the Haryana Urban Development Authorities Act, 1977 asking the plaintiff to deposit Rs.2,42,030/- which was duly replied on 27.10.1997 and a sum of Rs.30,000/- was deposited. The defendants had charged compound interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said amount to which they had no right. The plaintiff requested the defendants to correct the statement of account and raise the legal demand but they failed to consider his request which gave rise to the filing of the suit for declaration to the effect that the impugned demand notices were illegal, null and void and the defendants were not entitled to charge compound interest at the rate of 18% along with the penalty from the plaintiff. To controvert the claim of the plaintiff, the defendants filed a joint written statement wherein various preliminary objections were raised. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had deposited 10% of the auction money at the time of acceptance of bid and 15% of price money R.S.A. No. 1025 of 2008 -3- at the time of allotment and thereafter he had not deposited the instalments towards the balance sale price. It was further pleaded that in compliance with the demand notices issued to the plaintiff, he deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- only. It was also pleaded that the defendants were well within their rights to impose penalty and charge interest at the rate of 18% per annum in case of the delayed payment as per the stipulation mentioned on the last page of the allotment letter. On failure of the plaintiff to deposit the outstanding, the defendants had no other alternative but to resume the shop. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2005, decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the impugned notices were illegal, null and void. Further, the charging of interest at the rate of 18% per annum was held to be arbitrary. The trial court while setting aside the impugned notices directed the defendants to supply the statement of account to the plaintiff after charging interest at the rate of 10% per annum and the plaintiff was directed to deposit the recalculated amount within a period of 30 days thereafter. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal before the lower appellate court which vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.2007 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel has raised the same grounds as had been R.S.A. No. 1025 of 2008 -4- ventilated before the courts below to establish the case of the defendants, but he has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The courts below on appreciation of the evidence available on record held the impugned notices to be illegal, null and void and while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roochira Ceramics Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, 2001 (2) PLR 218 held that the defendants would charge interest at the rate of 10% per annum as the charging of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment was legally unsustainable. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this second appeal for determination of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. December 9, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE