C.W.P.No.8555 of 2014.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.8555 of 2014.
Date of Decision:- 06.05.2014 Hardeep Kumar Petitioner.
Versus Chandigarh Administration and others Respondents.
CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL Present: - Mr.Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Deepak Basatia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
LISA GILL,J.
The petitioner in this case challenges the order of cancellation of Booth No.201, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh dated 27.08.1985 as well as the orders dated 3.10.1989 and 22.09.1991 passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authority, respectively, upholding the order of cancellation of allotment.
The petitioner is stated to be subletee/tenant of the original owner,namely, Gurcharan Singh and Harbans Kaur.
The Booth was allotted to Gurcharan Singh and Harbans Kaur on lease hold basis under the scheme framed by the Chandigarh Administration for rehabilitation of shopkeepers uprooted from the Nehru and Shastri Market, Sector-22, Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.05.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.8555 of 2014.
2 Chandigarh.
As per conditions of allotment, the lessee is not entitled to transfer the building without the prior permission of the Estate Officer for a period of 15 years and further more the said building or any part thereof could not be sublet as per the provisions of the scheme.
The Estate Officer, Chandigarh vide order dated 02.09.1985 cancelled the lease of the above mentioned booth as the allottee had violated the terms and conditions by subletting the booth to the petitioner.
The order under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was passed pursuant to the order of cancellation of lease.
The petitioner's appeal against the said eviction order was dismissed and the Civil Writ Petition No.5500 of 1988 filed by him was ultimately decided on 05.02.2010.
It is pertinent to note that it was projected before the learned Single Judge that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of cancellation of allotment was pending before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh.
The eviction proceedings were, thus, quashed as the final adjudication on the order of cancellation was stated not to have been rendered and further direction for concluding the proceedings in appeal was issued to the competent authority, vide order dated 05.02.2010 in Civil Writ Petition No.5500 of 1988 (Annexure P-4).It is equally apt to mention here that not only the appeal but also the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.05.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.8555 of 2014.
3 Rule 22(4) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 against the cancellation order stood dismissed vide orders dated 03.10.1989 passed by the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh and 22.02.1991 passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T.Chandigarh, respectively.
Review application filed by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.5500 of 1988 was disposed of vide order dated 21.04.2011 (Annexure P-7) wherein it has been observed that the petitioner cannot have any remedy in the said proceedings qua the orders of the Appellate and Revisional authorities qua the order of cancellation of allotment.
The appeal filed by the allottee against the order of cancellation also stands dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P-8).The petitioner filed an application for recalling the order dated 22.02.1991 which was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2013 (Annexure P-11).It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order of cancellation of allotment itself is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without issuance of notice to the petitioner to whom the premises was sublet.
It is also contended that subletting of the premises is not barred by the terms and conditions of the allotment.
It is further contended that the allottee in collusion with the Administration was trying to have the premises vacated.
It is also averred that in any case the period of 15 years stipulated in the terms and conditions of the Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.05.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.8555 of 2014.
4 allotment had elapsed and the order of cancellation of allotment can, therefore, not be sustained.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and find no ground to interfere in the impugned orders which have been correctly passed.
We say so for the reason that the petitioner, admittedly, filed an appeal against the order dated 27.08.1985 which was dismissed vide order dated 03.10.1989.
It has been specifically observed in that order that the petitioner wilfully chose to be absent at the time of hearing.
On merit, it has been rightly observed that according to clause 11 of the allotment letter dated 02.01.1980, the allottee of the said booth was precluded from transferring the booth without prior permission for a period of 15 years and furthermore, the lessee could not sublet the said building or any part thereof as per specific terms and conditions of the allotment.
Before the Revisional Authority also, the petitioner chose not to appear hence his petition was justifiably dismissed vide order dated 22.02.1991.
A finding of fact has been recorded on perusal of the record that the Estate Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and the lease of the booth was cancelled thereafter.
Be that as it may, the petitioner has not been able to show any prejudice which may have been caused to him due to non issuance of notice to him before passing of the order of cancellation of allotment.
The petitioner had ample opportunity to present his case before the Appellate and Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.05.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.8555 of 2014.
5 Revisional authorities.
Therefore, at this stage, there is no merit in this plea.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this court in Dr.
Mohinder Verma versus Chandigarh Administration, 1998(4) RCR (Civil) page 511.
The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
No doubt, resumption or cancellation of lease has to be the last resort as has been held by the Full Bench in Dheera Singh Versus UT Chandigarh Admn.
& Ors., ORS.2012(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 970 but at the same time a person having scant respect for law cannot be shown in any indulgence.
To permit the petitioner at this stage to say that as a period of 15 years has expired, therefore, the basis of the cancellation order does not survive, is unjustified, inasmuch, as it would amount to granting premium to the petitioner of his own wrongs.
In a given situation an unscrupulous person may successfully stall the proceedings and, thereafter, raise the plea that the said period has elapsed.
In such like situation, the person-in-default cannot be permitted to raise the plea of expiry of the stipulate d period.
The conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to any relief in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction.
It has rightly been observed by the Revisional Authority in the order dated 25.09.2013 (Annexure P-11) that the petitioner is unnecessarily raking up a dead issue after more than 19 yeaRs.The petitioner has no right to indulge in litigation in this manner at his own Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.05.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh C.W.P.No.8555 of 2014.
6 pleasure, whims and fancies only with a view to continue in possession of the premises, thereby abusing the process of law.
The writ petition thus being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
(SURYA KANT) (LISA GILL) JUDGE JUDGE0605.2014.
Anoop Aggarwal Anoop Kumar 2014.05.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court Chandigarh