Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 – Appellants sold the Booth site to the respondents – The allotment letter was issued to the respondents-allottees on payment of 25% of the premium amount of the auctioned site – The balance 75% of the cost of the auctioned site was to be paid by the respondents – Respondents defaulted – As a result thereof, lease of the respondents was cancelled by the concerned statutory authorities – However, the High Court restored the plot allotted to the allottee and respondents herein were directed to pay the outstanding amount – Correctness:
Held: In the instant case, despite sufficient opportunities of hearing given to the allottees to clear the outstanding dues, the respondents-allottees had failed to clear the same – The High Court had committed gross error in allowing the writ petitions by holding that the tenant-MM, was not served with the notice of resumption with regard to the plot in question – Admittedly, there was no document whatsoever produced by the said alleged tenant to show that it was the tenant of the original allottees – When the original allottees themselves had failed to comply with the conditions of auction sale, and when the allotment itself made in favour of the said allottees was cancelled by the Statutory Authority after following the due process of law, i.e., by issuing show cause notice before cancellation of allotment, and when number of opportunities of hearing were given to the allottees to clear the outstanding dues, there was no question of serving any notice to the so called tenant, especially, when there was nothing on record to suggest that MM was the tenant of the original allottees – The litigation carried forward by the said alleged tenant is nothing but a proxy litigation on behalf of the original allottees, who were the defaulters and an abuse of process of law – In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court being erroneous is set aside. [Paras 11, 12]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.