HEMANT GUPTA,J. - (1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order of cancellation of lease for non payment of two instalments, passed by the Estate Officer on 6.6.1991, whereby Site No. 200, Sector 37 D, Chandigarh and the order in appeal passed by the Chief Administrator on 18.8.1992 dismissing the same, as well as order passed by the Adviser to the Administrator on 30.3.1993 whereby an order of restoration of site was passed subject to the condition of deposit of the outstanding amount.
(2.) The petitioner was the highest bidder of above said booth in the auction conducted on 13.3.1988. Letter of allotment was issued on 8.4.1988 on deposit of 25% premium amount. The balance of 75% of the premium amount along with interest thereon @ 7% per annum was to be paid in 3 equal annual instalments. The petitioner defaulted in payment of 2nd instalment, which leads to issuance of notice under Rule 12 (3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973. Consequent to the failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount, the lease was cancelled as mentioned above. The learned Adviser has accepted the revision and restored the site subject to the condition that the entire outstanding amount along with due forfeiture amount @ 5% per annum be paid within 2 months of the dispatch of the order. The relevant part of the order reads as under :- "Since the petitioner is not present, I am inclined to decide the petitioner myself on merit. Perusal of the record tends to show that a sum of Rs. 2,95,332/- is due on 30.3.1993 and the lease was cancelled due to the non payment of the second instalment of the premium which fell due on 13.3.1989. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I afford another opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount. Consequently, I set aside the impugned order, restore the site to the owner subject to the condition that the entire outstanding amount along with the reduced forfeiture of 5% is paid within two months reckonable from the despatch of this order failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall become operative. In the event of making payment by the stipulated date, last penalty shall be waived off."
(3.) The petitioner filed an application for review for the reason that such order was passed in her absence. But such review was dismissed on 16.1.1995. In the meantime on 20.4.1993, in terms of the order passed by the Adviser, the petitioner sent two demand drafts; one for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and another for a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. The same were returned to the petitioner on 8.7.1993. After the order was passed in review, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 6.7.1995 and another sum of Rs. 80,000/- on 3.8.1995. The said amount has been reflected in the calculations furnished by the Administration as Annexure R-1. Such calculations show that a sum of Rs. 1,47,728/- was due towards the petitioner as on 3.8.1995.;