CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9166 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 25 ,2011 Sakil Ahmed .....Petitioner VERSUS Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms. Sonal Dutta, Advocate for Mr. R. S. Guron, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order cancelling the lease of booth site No.46, Sector 31-C, Chandigarh and also the subsequent orders passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, these being wrong, illegal and erroneous. The booth in question was allotted to Jiwan Jot Singh on 17.11.1977. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the booth in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9166 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: the year 1986. Assistant Estate Officer issued a show cause notice to Jiwan Jot Singh for non-execution of lease deed on 27.7.2005. By then, Jiwan Jot Singh had migrated to U.S.A. The show cause notice, thus, did not reach him. The petitioner, however, was contacted by Jiwan Jot Singh on 5.10.2006, requiring him to appear before the authorities on 27.9.2006. The petitioner appeared before respondent No.3. He requested respondent No.3 for time to trace out the address of Jiwan Jot Singh, he being a tenant so as to afford proper opportunity to him for the purpose contained in the show cause notice. Respondent No.3, however, passed the impugned order, cancelling the lease of the site on 30.5.2007. The petitioner thereupon appealed against this order before Chief Administrator, which was dismissed on 30.7.2008, holding that the petitioner had no locus to file the same. The petitioner thereafter approached the Advisor and also brought on record the address of Jiwan Jot Singh, the allottee, so that notice could be issued to him to execute the lease deed. The Advisor to the Administrator, however, dismissed the revision petition by holding that the petitioner did not have any locus to file the revision. Thereafter, the respondents have initiated proceedings to evict the petitioner from the booth and accordingly he has challenged the order dated 8.5.2009 through the present writ petition. While issuing notice, the ejectment of the petitioner was stayed by observing that the ground taken by the respondents that allottee had failed to execute lease deed in favour of the Administration, could not be pressed at this belated stage after 20 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9166 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: years, when the entire consideration amount towards the price stood paid. Submission was that the Administration had acquiesced its right to eject the petitioner on this score. Reply is filed in this case, reiterating that the petitioner has no locus to file this writ petition. He is termed as merely as unauthorised occupant and a stranger to the property. Reference is made to Clause 10 of the allotment letter issued in favour of Jiwan Jot Singh, requiring him to execute lease deed within a period of six months from the date of auction. The respondents would allege that Jiwan Jot Singh has violated the terms and conditions of allotment and had failed to deposit the amount for allotment of this site and also did not comply with the condition to execute lease deed for allotment of this booth. The respondents accordingly would justify the show cause notice issued to the allottee, who did not appear even despite 10 opportunities granted to him to explain his position. The petitioner, though has appeared, but being an unauthorized occupant, would not have locus-standi to appear or to execute lease deed and hence, was not heard. The respondents have, thus, justified the cancellation of the lease deed. When the case was called for hearing, no one appeared for the petitioner. Concededly, the petitioner is a stranger to the property and would be in no position to execute the lease deed. The booth may have been allotted to Jiwan Jot Singh but he was required to comply with the conditions of allotment. In the reply filed, the respondents have clearly stated that he (Jiwan Jot Singh) violated the terms and conditions of the allotment and failed to deposit CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9166 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: amount of allotment of the site, apart from not complying with the condition to execute the lease deed. There is no rejoinder filed to this averment made that allottee had not made the payment. This Court had primarily issued notice on the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that entire consideration amount towards the price was paid by the allottee. This averment, thus, was not apparently rightly made. Even otherwise, the allottee is bound to execute the lease deed after the allotment as given in Para 10 of the allotment letter and non-compliance on his part can not be ignored on the ground that the respondents have acquiesced to the position for considerable period. The petitioner has no locus to maintain his possession over the booth as he is only an unauthorized occupant and can not have any other capacity to protect his possession. The petitioner has also not placed on record any tenancy in his favour, though has simply mentioned this fact in the writ petition. I do not find any valid reason to call for interference in the impugned orders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. April 25,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE