Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the communication dated 18.10.1996 (Annexure P -4) whereby allotment of Shop -cum -Office (for short 'SCO') Site No. 861 situated in 61.21 Acres Development Scheme in Mani Majra was cancelled. The challenge is also to an order passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, against the order of cancellation dated 18.10.1996 passed on 04.07.1997 maintaining the order of cancellation. Shop -cum -Office Site No. 861 situated in 61.21 Acres Development Scheme was auctioned on 20.11.1988 for an amount of Rs. 18,07,000/ -. Apart from the 25% of the amount which was deposited, the balance six annual installments were payable up to 20.11.1994. However, there was default in depositing the installments which led to cancellation of the allotment letter.
(2.) THE petitioner challenged the cancellation, inter alia, on the ground that sewerage connection was granted in respect of the premises on 24.05.1990. But there are no tenants to take the premises on rent on account of Mandal Agitation; strikes, imposition of curfew etc. and that market had yet to be developed. It is also pointed out that Mr. O.P. Bansal, father of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner No. 3 died on 20.12.1994 after prolonged illness, and therefore, all the installments could not be paid. It is also pointed out that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/ - in the year 1997 and also Rs. 13,70,000/ - on 17.10.1997. An amount of Rs. 4,07,568/ - was found due from the petitioners, which can be made out from the order dated 09.01.1998. The said amount was deposited on 04.02.1998. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Narain Dass Mahen v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, (2003 -1) 126 PLR 1, wherein order of resumption for non -payment of installments was upheld Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to an order passed by Division Bench of this court in Adviser to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others v. B.K. Nanda, : (2013 -3)171 PLR 79, in which one of us (Hemant Gupta J.) was a member. It was held that equitable consideration for extension of time of cancellation of lease or resumption of a residential plot would be materially different from cancellation of lease of a commercial property. It was held to the following effect: - "12. The equitable considerations for extension of time of cancellation of lease or resumption of a residential plot would be materially different from cancellation of a lease of a commercial property. The residence is a basic necessity fundamental to decent human existence, whereas commercial property is purchased for profit motive either to make a living out of it or to exploit the same commercially by renting out the same. The allottee is a purchaser of a commercial property in an open auction knowing fully well that the balance premium amount has to be paid in three annual installments. Having purchased the commercial property in an open auction, then to raise a plea of lack of insufficient funds is wholly unjustified and untenable. If the allottee has no funds, he should not have ventured into the arena of purchase of commercial property. The terms of allotment have to be strictly adhered to as it is a commercial motive, which prompted the allottee to participate in an open auction. Therefore, he is bound to honour such commercial commitments in terms of the allotment letter."
(3.) RELYING upon the said judgment it is pointed out that petitioners are claiming restoration of a commercial property, and therefore', the equitable considerations cannot be taken into consideration.;