Shiv Dayal vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This petition, filed for quashing the orders passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, is similar to C.W.P. No. 15283 of 1994, Raj Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, 1999(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 238, decided on January 29, 1999 alongwith four other petitions.

It appears from the record that builtup booth No. 5, Sector 17, Chandigarh was allotted to the petitioner on 14.4.1987 for a premium of Rs. 5,41,000/ for doing the trade of eatables i.e. ChanaBhatura and Chat. In terms of the letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to pay 25% of the premium before taking possession and the remaining amount was to be paid in three equated instalments of Rs. 1,54,611/ each payable on 22.2.1988, 22.2.1989 and 22.3.1990 along with ground rent @ Rs. 13,525/ for first 33 years. After obtaining possession of the booth, the petitioner paid Rs. 2,15,250/ in five different instalments but he failed to pay full premium in accordance with the schedule of payment specified in paragraph 5 of the letter of allotment. Therefore, proceedings under the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sises and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were initiated against him. Similar proceedings were initiated against other allottees who too failed to pay premium and ground rent. By an order dated 8.7.1992, the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, cancelled the lease of the booth and forfeited 10% of the premium plus interest and ground rent. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh respectively. Review application filed by him was also dismissed by the Adviser to the Administrator.

At the hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the dismissal of similar petitions filed by allottees of five other booths, this petition may also be dismissed. Shri Ravinder Chopra frankly and fairly conceded that the issues raised in this petition are identical to those raised in C.W.P. No. 15283 of 1994 and connected petitions decided on January 29, 1999 but he tried to distinguish the decision of Raj Kumar''s case (supra) on the ground that the petitioner had paid a part of the premium before cancellation of the lease and the remaining amount together with interest etc. has been deposited under the interim order passed by this Court during the pendency of the writ petition. However, after having carefully perused the order passed in the writ petitions filed by Raj Kumar and other connected cases, we are of the considered view that there is no valid reason to pass a different order in the case of the petitioner because in other petitions also some of the petitioners had paid part of the premium before the cancellation of the lease and most of them had deposited the entire amount of premium during the pendency of the writ petitions. This aspect was considered by the Court while dismissing those writ petitions.

In view of the above and for the detailed reasons recorded in the order dated January 29, 1999 passed in Raj Kumar''s case (supra), which shall be treated as part of this order, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply for retransfer of the property under Rule 21A of the 1973 Rules. The direction given in Raj Kumar''s case (supra) on this issue shall also apply to the case of the petitioner.