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

                J U D G M E N T

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

to the respondent.   

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