DEVINDER LAL GUPTA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 6.5.1985, 12.10.1992 and 3.3.1993 passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, the Chief Administration and the Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh respectively.

(2.) Within one year of having secured possession of the site by paying 25% of the premium. The petitioners erected a four storeyed building of which second, third and fourth floors were lease-out to Canara Bank on 15.3.1986. However, they did not pay first, second and third instalments of premium which became due on 21.2.1984, 21.2.1985 and 21.2.1986 respectively. They also failed to pay the ground rent @ Rs. 67,750/- per annum. This resulted in initiation of proceedings under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules'). The Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the power of the Estate Officer, Union Territory issued notice dated 10.9.1984 requiring the petitioners to show cause against the proposed cancellation of the lease. He adjourned the hearing of the case on 25.9.1984, 6.11.1984, 30.11.1984, 11.12.1984, 28.12.1984, 11.1.1985. The petitioners neither paid the dues in response to the notices nor they appeared before the Assistant Estate Officer on the adjourned dates, who ultimately passed the order dated May 6, 1985 and cancelled the lease of the site. He also ordered forfeiture of 10% of the premium plus ground rent and interest. The appeal filed by the petitioners under Rule 22 of the Rules was fixed for hearing before the Lok Adalat on 11.6.1992 and 26.11.1992 but they failed to avail the opportunity of settlement. However, during the course of hearing of the appeal, their counsel made a statement that his clients are ready and willing to pay the amount of premium. However, the appellate authority refused to rely on his statement and dismissed the appeal on 12.10.1992. The Adviser to the Administrator dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners.

(3.) Shri Chetan Mittal urged the following contentions in support of the petition:-