CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND versus HARI RAM on 6 August 2019

57[2019] 11 S.C.R. 1

CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS

v.

HARI RAM

(Civil Appeal No. 6123 of 2019)

AUGUST 06, 2019

[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act,1971 – s.5(1) – Eviction of unauthorised occupants – Respondentwas allotted a booth by appellant-administration for a total premiumof Rs.70,500/- on lease basis in the year 1996 – Respondent madeinitial payment and possession was handed over to him – However,respondent did not pay first, second and third installments –Consequently, lease granted in favour of the respondent wascancelled – Aggrieved, respondent preferred appeal before the ChiefAdministrator – Meanwhile, the Estate officer passed eviction orderagainst the respondent – However, Appellate Authority set asidethe eviction order – Appeal preferred before the Chief Administratorchallenging the cancellation of lease was dismissed – Revision filedagainst the order of the Chief Administrator was also dismissed –Writ petition – High Court granted a further opportunity to therespondent to pay the outstanding dues since he had already paidan amount of Rs.1,02,000/- and had also deposited Rs.40,000/- inthe High Court – On appeal, held: The respondent was given asmany as twenty-six opportunities, but he failed to deposit the dues– When the respondent has consistently defaulted in payment ofpremium/installments, it is open to the competent authority to takeaction in accordance with law – Since the allotment of the respondentwas of the year 1996 and considering the fact that the respondentalready deposited an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- it would not beappropriate to direct the respondent to pay the current market valueof booth – In order to maintain balance between the interest of theappellant-administration and also the interest of respondent-allotteeand in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to adopt thevalue of the booth as in the year 2010 i.e. Rs.12,77,950/- –Respondent has already paid an amount of Rs.2,72,969/- which isinclusive of property tax – However, property tax paid by him cannotbe adjusted – Therefore, respondent directed to pay the said amount

57

A

B

CDEF

G

H

Aof Rs.12,77,950/- less Rs.2,52,000/- (amount already paid by therespondent) within six months – On failure to deposit the saidamount, the appellant-administration to proceed for eviction inaccordance with law.

Allowing the appeal, the CourtB

HELD: 1. In the present case, after the allotment, therespondent has paid only the initial payment and has not paid thefirst, second and third instalments and the ground rent which felldue on 25.12.1997, 21.12.1998 and 25.12.1999 and inspite ofseveral opportunities, respondent has not paid the amount. WhenCthe respondent has consistently defaulted in payment of thepremium/instalments, it is open to the competent authority totake action in accordance with the law. When the value is statedto be above Rs.26 lakhs in the year 2015, the appellantAdministration cannot be asked to part with the land at the sameDrate as in the year 1996. Without keeping in view of the defaultcommitted by the respondent, the High Court was not right insetting aside the order of cancellation of allotment and directingthe respondent to receive the outstanding dues. Since theallotment was made way back in 1996, the respondent cannotinsist upon the payment of the then market value in the yearE1996. [Para 10] [62-F-H]

2. As on the date of impugned order of the High Court, therespondent has paid only an amount of Rs.1,02,000/-. As seenfrom the order of the Chief Administrator, despite the statementFmade before the Estate Officer that the respondent is ready todeposit the balance, the amount has not been paid. In complianceof the order of this Court dated 26.03.2019, the respondent issaid to have deposited Rs.1,50,000/- with the ChandigarhAdministration. On direction from this Court, the counselappearing for the appellant has filed an affidavit stating that as onG31.08.2015, an amount of Rs.1,91,114/- on account of ground rentand interest and a sum of Rs.2,735/- on account of service taxare due. In the affidavit filed on 19.08.2015, it is stated that as onthe date, as per the collector rate, current market value of thebooth is Rs.26,35,772/- plus Rs.48,576/- (construction charges)Hand the total is Rs.26,84,348/-. On further direction from this Court, the counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administrationhas submitted that as on 2010, the then current market value ofthe booth was Rs.12,77,950/-. [Para 11] [63-A-C]

3. Since the allotment of the respondent was of the year1996 and considering the fact that the respondent has alreadydeposited an amount of Rs.1,02,000/-, it would not be appropriateto direct the respondent to pay the current market value of thebooth. In order to maintain balance between the interest of theappellant Administration and also the interest of the respondent-allottee and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate toadopt the value of the booth as in 2010. Considering the factsand circumstances of the case and also the fact that the respondenthas already deposited an amount of Rs.1,02,000/-, it is appropriateto direct the respondent to pay the then market value of the boothas of 2010 i.e. Rs.12,77,950/-. The counsel appearing for therespondent has submitted that the respondent has so far paid anamount of Rs.2,72,969/- which is inclusive of the property tax.Since the respondent claims to have been in enjoyment of thebooth over the years, the property tax paid by him cannot beadjusted against the amount payable by the respondent.The amount of Rs.10,25,950/- (that is Rs.12,77,950/- lessRs.2,52,000/- amount already paid by the respondent) is payableby the respondent. [Para 12] [63-D-G]

Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh and Others(2004) 2 SCC 130 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1235 -referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1235referred toPara 9

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6123of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2012 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 19200 of2008.

M. S. Doabia, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Advs. for the Appellants.Dinesh Verma, Rajat Sharma, S. L. Aneja, Advs. for theRespondent.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

[2019] 11 S.C.R.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 26.07.2012 passed byBthe High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.19200 of 2008 in andby which the High Court has set aside the order of eviction passedagainst the appellant and directing the amount of Rs.40,000/- depositedby him be returned to the respondent so as to enable him to use theamount in paying the outstanding dues of lease of the commercial boothallotted to the respondent.C

3. Respondent-Hari Ram was allotted a booth No.254, Sector-20D, Chandigarh by the appellant-Chandigarh Administration for a totalpremium of Rs.70,500/- on lease basis for a period of ninety-nine yearson 26.12.1996. The respondent made initial payment and possession washanded over to him accordingly. The respondent has not paid the first,Dsecond 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 favourof the respondent was cancelled as there was breach of conditions ofthe lease as respondent failed to deposit three installments and also theground rent. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of allotment, theErespondent preferred appeal before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh.In the meanwhile, the eviction order was passed against the respondenton 09.02.2007 under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 as applicable to the Union Territoryof Chandigarh.F4. Challenging the order of eviction, the respondent filed appealbefore the Appellate Authority-Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.The Additional District Judge vide order dated 14.05.2007 set aside theorder of eviction passed by the Estate Officer by holding that the orderof cancellation of allotment of booth dated 21.06.2006 has been challengedby the respondent before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh and theGsaid appeal was then still pending. The learned Additional District Judgeheld that since the appeal against the cancellation of allotment waspending, the Estate Officer should have waited for decision of that appealand the proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer is not sustainable. Onthose findings, the Appellate Authority-Additional District Judge set asideHthe 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 theappeal against the cancellation of the allotment of the booth pendingbefore the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh.

5. The appeal preferred by the respondent against the order ofcancellation of lease before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh wasdismissed by order dated 20.08.2008. The Chief Administrator,Chandigarh held that the Estate Officer has given at least twenty-sixopportunities to the respondent over a period of four years yet therespondent-allottee failed to deposit the same. The Chief Administratorrefused to accept the request of respondent seeking time to deposit theamount pending dues before the Estate Officer. Being aggrieved, therespondent has filed revision before the Advisor to the Administrator,Chandigarh contending that he is a poor and is feeding his family onlyfrom the meagre income earned from his booth. In the said revision, therespondent has undertaken to pay the entire outstanding amount in case,opportunity is given to him. The Advisor to the Administrator vide orderdated 22.10.2008 dismissed the revision and held that the respondentwas given sufficient time by the appellate court to clear the outstandingdues but the respondent has failed to avail the same.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed writ petition before theHigh Court in CWP No.19200 of 2008 and the same was allowed by theHigh Court vide the impugned order. The High Court held that at thetime 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 incompliance with the interim order dated 10.11.2008, the respondent hasalso deposited Rs.40,000/- in the High Court. The High Court held thatfurther opportunity has to be given to the respondent to pay the outstandingdues and his case cannot be shut out by citing number of opportunitiesgiven to him to deposit the money. The High Court allowed the writpetition and directed the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by therespondent be returned to him so as to enable him to use the said amountin 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 partiesand perused the impugned order and materials on record.

8. It is seen from the record that the allotment of commercialbooth No.254, Sector-20D, Chandigarh was made to the respondent on26.12.1996. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the appellant AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Abeing the lessee was required to deposit the balance 75% within threeannual equated installments along with the interest and annual groundrent as well. The respondent committed default in payment of first,second and third installments and also the ground rent which fell due on25.12.1997, 25.12.1998 and 25.12.1999. As pointed out by the ChiefAdministrator, Chandigarh in his order dated 20.08.2008, the respondentBwas given as many as twenty-six opportunities; but he has failed todeposit the dues. The slump in the business cannot be the reason fordefault in payment of the lease rent and the ground rent which fell dueon 25.12.1997, 25.12.1998 and 25.12.1999.

9. For holding that the cancellation of allotment would causeChardship to the respondent and that one more opportunity has to be givenhim to pay the outstanding dues, the High Court has relied upon in TeriOat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh and Others (2004) 2 SCC130. In Teri Oat Estates, respondent thereon earlier paid the installmentamount and during the pendency of the matter before the Court theDrespondent thereon paid a substantial amount towards the due payabletogether with the interest @ 12%. It is in those facts and circumstances,in Teri Oat Estates, the Supreme Court held that resumption of the landand the building would cause extreme hardship which may be faced bythe parties and the same shall not ordinarily be resorted to. In order toEmaintain an appropriate balance, in Teri Oat Estates, the Supreme Courtobserved that the matter warrants application of the doctrine ofproportionality.

10. In the present case, after the allotment, the respondent haspaid only the initial payment and has not paid the first, second and thirdFinstalments and the ground rent which fell due on 25.12.1997, 21.12.1998and 25.12.1999 and inspite of several opportunities, respondent has notpaid the amount. When the respondent has consistently defaulted inpayment of the premium/instalments, it is open to the competent authorityto take action in accordance with the law. When the value is stated to beabove Rs.26 lakhs in the year 2015, the appellant Administration cannotGbe 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, theHigh Court was not right in setting aside the order of cancellation ofallotment and directing the respondent to receive the outstanding dues.Since the allotment was made way back in 1996, the respondent cannotHinsist upon the payment of the then market value in the year 1996.

11. As on the date of impugned order of the High Court dated26.07.2012, the respondent has paid only an amount of Rs.1,02,000/-.As seen from the order of the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh dated20.08.2008, despite the statement made before the Estate Officer thatthe respondent is ready to deposit the balance, the amount has not beenpaid. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 26.03.2019, therespondent is said to have deposited Rs.1,50,000/- with the ChandigarhAdministration. On direction from this Court, the learned counsel appearingfor the appellant has filed an affidavit stating that as on 31.08.2015, anamount of Rs.1,91,114/- on account of ground rent and interest and asum of Rs.2,735/- on account of service tax are due. In the affidavitfiled on 19.08.2015, it is stated that as on the date, as per the collectorrate, 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 furtherdirection from this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the ChandigarhAdministration has submitted that as on 2010, the then current marketvalue of the booth was Rs.12,77,950/-.

12. Since the allotment of the respondent was of the year 1996and considering the fact that the respondent has already deposited anamount of Rs.1,02,000/-, it would not be appropriate to direct therespondent to pay the current market value of the booth. In order tomaintain balance between the interest of the appellant Administrationand also the interest of the respondent-allottee and in the interest ofjustice, it would be appropriate to adopt the value of the booth as in2010. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also thefact 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 marketvalue of the booth as of 2010 i.e. Rs.12,77,950/-. The learned counselappearing for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has sofar paid an amount of Rs.2,72,969/- which is inclusive of the propertytax. Since the respondent claims to have been in enjoyment of the boothover the years, the property tax paid by him cannot be adjusted againstthe amount payable by the respondent. The amount of Rs.10,25,950/-(that is Rs.12,77,950/- less Rs.2,52,000 - amount already paid by therespondent) is payable by the respondent.

13. In the result, the impugned order of the High Court is set asideand this appeal is allowed. The respondent is granted six months time topay the amount of Rs.10,25,950/- (Rs.12,77,950/- less Rs.2,52,000/-).

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AOn such deposit, the appellant-Administration shall confirm the allotmentin favour of the respondent and execute the necessary documents infavour of the respondent at the expense of the respondent. On failure todeposit the amount within the period of six months, the appellant-Administration shall proceed with the respondent for eviction inaccordance with law. This order is passed in the peculiar facts andBcircumstances of the present case and shall not be quoted as precedentin other matters.

C

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H