- (1.) BY way of this petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC, for short) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, applicant, M/s Krishan Chand Ganesh Dass Vinay Kumar and Company, craves that judgment dated 19.09.2013 dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.17038 of 1991, M/s Krishan Chand Ganesh Dass Vinay Kumar and Company versus The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others be recalled and Civil Writ Petition be set down the for fresh hearing. Background facts: After the applicant was successful (highest bidder) in an open auction held on 16.12.1979, Cinema Site No.2, Sector -17, Chandigarh, was leased out for 99 years to it for a premium of Rs.56,04,000/ - plus ground rent, vide letter of allotment dated 17.01.1980. Besides the terms and conditions set out in the letter of allotment, the lease was amenable to the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Rules'). Applicant deposited an amount of Rs.14,01,000/ - as 25% of the premium. Balance along with interest @ 7% per annum could be paid in three equated annual installments, as per schedule of payment given in the letter of allotment. Clause (8) of the letter of allotment stipulated that in the event of non -payment of any installment of premium or ground rent by the 10th of the month following the month in which it fell due or within such extended period as might be allowed by the Estate Officer, but not exceeding three months in all from the date on which the installment was originally due, the lease was liable to be cancelled and whole or part of the amount already paid was liable to forfeiture. A letter authorizing the applicant to take possession of the site in question was enclosed with the letter of allotment.
(2.) APPLICANT did not adhere to the schedule of payment, rather did not pay even a single installment towards the balance amount of the premium and even ignored notices dated 23.12.1981, 02.05.1985, 13.05.1985, 13.08.1985, 18.01.1986, 17.05.1986, 28.07.1986, 17.09.1986, 14.05.1987 and 25.06.1987 issued by the Estate Officer calling upon it to deposit the due installments. Forced by the situation, Estate Officer, vide order dated 14.07.1987 (issued on 13.08.1987) cancelled the lease of the site in question and ordered forfeiture of 10% of the premium of the site plus interest and ground rent up to the date of cancellation of the lease, i.e., Rs.5,60,400/ -, under Rule 12(3) of the 1973 Rules, that too after a notice dated 14.05.1987 served upon, and two opportunities of personal hearing granted to, the applicant proved ineffective. To challenge order dated 14.07.1987, applicant preferred an appeal under Rule 22 of the 1973 Rules before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh, which, after contest, was dismissed vide order dated 30.01.1990. Revision petition preferred by the applicant under Rule 22(4) of the 1973 Rules, against order dated 30.01.1990 was also dismissed by the Advisor to the Administration, Union Territory of Chandigarh, vide order dated 28.01.1991.
(3.) TO challenge cancellation of lease of the site in question vide order dated 14.07.1987, dismissal of appeal vide order dated 30.01.1990, dismissal of revision petition vide order dated 28.01.1991 and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over to it possession of the site in question on the terms and conditions on which it was auctioned to it in the year, 1979, the applicant invoked extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 17038 of 1991, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, alleging that it could not commence construction over the site in question because its possession was never handed over to it, the writing showing delivery of possession under the signature of its partner Ashok Kumar was forged, the site was unfit for delivery of possession and commencement of construction as a number of huts were existing thereon, the site in question being adjoining the other cinema site, requisite gap of 40 feet between the two buildings was not available and for that reason the Fire Department would not clear the construction and the District Magistrate did not approve the building plan as it did not meet the requirements of Punjab Cinema Regulation Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cinema Act') and rules framed there -under. Respondents in the Writ Petition contested applicant's claim by stating in the written reply that the applicant did not deposit the installments as per terms and conditions of allotment and did not submit building plan till the year 1987 even though possession of the site was handed over to it on 17.01.1980 after the site was cleared of the huts etc. on 15.01.1980 and neither the Fire Department, nor the District Magistrate nor the respondents ever stopped the applicant from raising construction of the cinema having 1375 seats. In fact, applicant deposited 15% of the premium (to make it 25% of the premium) only after the site had been cleared.;