CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND versus HARI RAM

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 57 · Decided: 06-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
57
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 – Respondent
was allotted a booth by appellant-administration for a total premium
of Rs.70,500/- on lease basis in the year 1996 – Respondent made
initial 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 was
cancelled – Aggrieved, respondent preferred appeal before the Chief
Administrator – Meanwhile, the Estate officer passed eviction order
against the respondent – However, Appellate Authority set aside
the eviction order – Appeal preferred before the Chief Administrator
challenging the cancellation of lease was dismissed – Revision filed
against the order of the Chief Administrator was also dismissed –
Writ petition – High Court granted a further opportunity to the
respondent to pay the outstanding dues since he had already paid
an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- and had also deposited Rs.40,000/- in
the High Court – On appeal, held: The respondent was given as
many as twenty-six opportunities, but he failed to deposit the dues
– When the respondent has consistently defaulted in payment of
premium/installments, it is open to the competent authority to take
action in accordance with law – Since the allotment of the respondent
was of the year 1996 and considering the fact that the respondent
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 booth – In order to maintain balance between the interest of the
appellant-administration and also the interest of respondent-allottee
and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to adopt the
value 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 is
inclusive of property tax – However, property tax paid by him cannot
be adjusted – Therefore, respondent directed to pay the said amount
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 1
57
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 57
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
of Rs.12,77,950/- less Rs.2,52,000/- (amount already paid by the
respondent) within six months – On failure to deposit the said
amount, the appellant-administration to proceed for eviction in
accordance with law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 respondent cannot
insist upon the payment of the then market value in the year
1996. [Para 10] [62-F-H]
2. As on the date of impugned order of the High Court, the
respondent has paid only an amount of Rs.1,02,000/-. As seen
from the order of the Chief Administrator, 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 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 directi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.