Chandigarh Administration vs Hari Ram

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6123 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.13987 of 2014)

CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS ...Appellants VERSUS HARI RAM …Respondent

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 26.07.2012

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP

No.19200 of 2008 in and by which the High Court has set aside

the order of eviction passed against the appellant and directing

the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by him be returned to the

respondent so as to enable him to use the amount in paying

the outstanding dues of lease of the commercial booth allotted Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MADHU BALA to the respondent.

Date: 2019.08.06 17:23:37 IST Reason: 1

3. Respondent-Hari Ram was allotted a booth No.254,

Sector-20D, Chandigarh by the appellant-Chandigarh

Administration for a total premium of Rs.70,500/- on lease

basis for a period of ninety-nine years on 26.12.1996. The

respondent made initial payment and possession was handed

over to him accordingly. The respondent has not paid the first,

second and third installments and ground rent which fell due on

25.12.1997, 25.12.1998 and 25.12.1999. On 21.06.2006, the

lease granted in favour of the respondent was cancelled as

there was breach of conditions of the lease as respondent

failed to deposit three installments and also the ground rent.

Being aggrieved by the cancellation of allotment, the

respondent preferred appeal before the Chief Administrator,

Chandigarh. In the meanwhile, the eviction order was passed

against the respondent on 09.02.2007 under Section 5(1) of the

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,

1971 as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

4. Challenging the order of eviction, the respondent filed

appeal before the Appellate Authority-Additional District Judge,

Chandigarh. The Additional District Judge vide order dated

2 14.05.2007 set aside the order of eviction passed by the Estate

Officer by holding that the order of cancellation of allotment of

booth dated 21.06.2006 has been challenged by the

respondent before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh and the

said appeal was then still pending. The learned Additional

District Judge held that since the appeal against the

cancellation of allotment was pending, the Estate Officer should

have waited for decision of that appeal and the proceedings

initiated by the Estate Officer is not sustainable. On those

findings, the Appellate Authority-Additional District Judge set

aside the eviction order with a direction that the appellant was

not to be evicted from the booth No.254, Sector-20D,

Chandigarh till the disposal of the appeal against the

cancellation of the allotment of the booth pending before the

Chief Administrator, Chandigarh.

5. The appeal preferred by the respondent against the order

of cancellation of lease before the Chief Administrator,

Chandigarh was dismissed by order dated 20.08.2008. The

Chief Administrator, Chandigarh held that the Estate Officer has

given at least twenty-six opportunities to the respondent over a

3 period of four years yet the respondent-allottee failed to deposit

the same. The Chief Administrator refused to accept the

request of respondent seeking time to deposit the amount

pending dues before the Estate Officer. Being aggrieved, the

respondent has filed revision before the Advisor to the

Administrator, Chandigarh contending that he is a poor and is

feeding his family only from the meagre income earned from

his booth. In the said revision, the respondent has undertaken

to pay the entire outstanding amount in case, opportunity is

given to him. The Advisor to the Administrator vide order dated

22.10.2008 dismissed the revision and held that the respondent

was given sufficient time by the appellate court to clear the

outstanding dues but the respondent has failed to avail the

same.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed writ petition before

the High Court in CWP No.19200 of 2008 and the same was

allowed by the High Court vide the impugned order. The High

Court held that at the time of allotment in 1996, the total

premium for the booth was Rs.70,500/- and the respondent has

so far paid an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- and in compliance with

4 the interim order dated 10.11.2008, the respondent has also

deposited Rs.40,000/- in the High Court. The High Court held

that further opportunity has to be given to the respondent to

pay the outstanding dues and his case cannot be shut out by

citing number of opportunities given to him to deposit the

money. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed

the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the respondent be

returned to him so as to enable him to use the said amount in

paying the outstanding dues of the lease of the commercial

booth. Being aggrieved, the Chandigarh Administration has

preferred this appeal.

7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both

the parties and perused the impugned order and materials on

record.

8. It is seen from the record that the allotment of commercial

booth No.254, Sector-20D, Chandigarh was made to the

respondent on 26.12.1996. As per the terms and conditions of

the allotment, the appellant being the lessee was required to

deposit the balance 75% within three annual equated

installments along with the interest and annual ground rent as

5 well. The respondent committed default in payment of first,

second and third installments and also the ground rent which

fell due on 25.12.1997, 25.12.1998 and 25.12.1999. As

pointed out by the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh in his order

dated 20.08.2008, the respondent was given as many as

twenty-six opportunities; but he has failed to deposit the dues.

The slump in the business cannot be the reason for default in

payment of the lease rent and the ground rent which fell due on

25.12.1997, 25.12.1998 and 25.12.1999.

9. For holding that the cancellation of allotment would cause

hardship to the respondent and that one more opportunity has

to be given him to pay the outstanding dues, the High Court

has relied upon in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh

and Others (2004) 2 SCC 130. In Teri Oat Estates, respondent

thereon earlier paid the installment amount and during the

pendency of the matter before the Court the respondent

thereon paid a substantial amount towards the due payable

together with the interest @ 12%. It is in those facts and

circumstances, in Teri Oat Estates, the Supreme Court held

that resumption of the land and the building would cause

6 extreme hardship which may be faced by the parties and the

same shall not ordinarily be resorted to. In order to maintain an

appropriate balance, in Teri Oat Estates, the Supreme

Court observed that the matter warrants application of the

doctrine of proportionality.

10. In the present case, after the allotment, the respondent

has paid only the initial payment and has not paid the first,

second and third instalments and the ground rent which fell due

on 25.12.1997, 21.12.1998 and 25.12.1999 and inspite of

several opportunities, respondent has not paid the amount.

When the respondent has consistently defaulted in payment of

the premium/instalments, it is open to the competent authority

to take action in accordance with the law. When the value is

stated to be above Rs.26 lakhs in the year 2015, the appellant

Administration cannot be asked to part with the land at the

same rate as in the year 1996. Without keeping in view of the

default committed by the respondent, the High Court was not

right in setting aside the order of cancellation of allotment and

directing the respondent to receive the outstanding dues.

Since the allotment was made way back in 1996, the

7 respondent cannot insist upon the payment of the then market

value in the year 1996.

11. As on the date of impugned order of the High Court dated

26.07.2012, the respondent has paid only an amount of

Rs.1,02,000/-. As seen from the order of the Chief

Administrator, Chandigarh dated 20.08.2008, despite the

statement made before the Estate Officer that the respondent is

ready to deposit the balance, the amount has not been paid. In

compliance of the order of this Court dated 26.03.2019, the

respondent is said to have deposited Rs.1,50,000/- with the

Chandigarh Administration. On direction from this Court, the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant has filed an

affidavit stating that as on 31.08.2015, an amount of

Rs.1,91,114/- on account of ground rent and interest and a sum

of Rs.2,735/- on account of service tax are due. In the affidavit

filed on 19.08.2015, it is stated that as on the date, as per the

collector rate, current market value of the booth is

Rs.26,35,772/- plus Rs.48,576/- (construction charges) and the

total is Rs.26,84,348/-. On further direction from this Court, the

learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration

8 has submitted that as on 2010, the then current market value of

the booth was Rs.12,77,950/-.

12. Since the allotment of the respondent was of the year

1996 and considering the fact that the respondent has already

deposited an amount of Rs.1,02,000/-, it would not be

appropriate to direct the respondent to pay the current market

value of the booth. In order to maintain balance between the

interest of the appellant Administration and also the interest of

the respondent-allottee and in the interest of justice, it would be

appropriate to adopt the value of the booth as in 2010.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also

the fact that the respondent has already deposited an amount

of Rs.1,02,000/-, we deem it appropriate to direct the

respondent to pay the then market value of the booth as of

2010 i.e. Rs.12,77,950/-. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondent has submitted that the respondent has so far paid

an amount of Rs.2,72,969/- which is inclusive of the property

tax. Since the respondent claims to have been in enjoyment of

the booth over the years, the property tax paid by him cannot

be adjusted against the amount payable by the respondent.

9 The amount of Rs.10,25,950/- (that is Rs.12,77,950/- less

Rs.2,52,000 - amount already paid by the respondent) is

payable by the respondent.

13. In the result, the impugned order of the High Court is set

aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondent is granted six

months time to pay the amount of Rs.10,25,950/-

(Rs.12,77,950/- less Rs.2,52,000/-). On such deposit, the

appellant-Administration shall confirm the allotment in favour of

the respondent and execute the necessary documents in

favour of the respondent at the expense of the respondent. On

failure to deposit the amount within the period of six months,

the appellant-Administration shall proceed with the respondent

for eviction in accordance with law. This order is passed in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and shall

not be quoted as precedent in other matters.

…………………………..J. [R. BANUMATHI]

…………………………..J. [A.S. BOPANNA] New Delhi;

August 06, 2019

10