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 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 direction from this Court, the counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration has submitted that as on 2010, the then current market value of the booth was Rs.12,77,950/-. [Para 11] [63-A-C]
3. Since the allotment of the respondent was of the year 1996 and considering the fact that the respondent has 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 the booth. In order to maintain balance between the interest of the appellant Administration and also the interest of the respondentallottee and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to adopt the value of the booth as in 2010. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the respondent has already deposited an amount of Rs.1,02,000/-, it is appropriate to direct the respondent to pay the then market value of the booth as of 2010 i.e. Rs.12,77,950/-. The counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has so far paid an amount of Rs.2,72,969/- which is inclusive of the property tax. Since the respondent claims to have been in enjoyment of the booth over the years, the property tax paid by him cannot be adjusted against the amount payable by the respondent. The amount of Rs.10,25,950/- (that is Rs.12,77,950/- less Rs.2,52,000/- amount already paid by the respondent) is payable by the respondent. [Para 12] [63-D-G]
Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh and Others (2004) 2 SCC 130 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1235 referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.