SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, LALIT BATRA, JJ.
Banarsi Lal – Petitioner
Versus
Chandigarh Administration & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-20451 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Deepa Kumari, Advocate; For the Appellant
Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Sumeet Jain, Addl. Standing counsel; For the Respondent/UT Chandigarh

Headnote:(A) Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 - Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 - Cancellation of lease of built up booth - The petitioner failed to execute the lease deed within the stipulated period which led to cancellation of lease and forfeiture of premium; however, the court emphasized the harshness of strict enforcement of Rule 14(2), stating it should be read as a directory provision rather than mandatory. The petitioner was found to have paid the entire premium and was simply unable to execute the lease deed due to circumstances beyond his control. (Paras 16, 20, 22)

(B) Legal principles regarding administrative discretion - The court highlighted that the Estate Officer has the authority to extend the execution period for good cause. (Para 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was allotted a booth in Chandigarh for 99 years. He operated a business from the booth but failed to execute the lease deed due to personal circumstances, leading to orders of cancellation by the Estate Officer.

Findings of Court:
The court found the cancellation harsh and emphasized the rehabilitative intent of the original allotment scheme, consequently restoring the lease.

Issues: Whether cancellation of the lease was justifiable given the petitioner's payment of premiums and extenuating circumstances surrounding the execution of the lease.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined Rule 14(2) should not mechanically result in harsh penalties, and the administrative actions must consider the realities faced by the petitioner, including his full payment of dues.

Result: Petition allowed; orders dated 12.08.2009, 18.05.2010, and 10.07.2013 set aside and booth restored to petitioner.

Table of Content
1. petition filed for quashing lease cancellation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. petitioner asserts compliance and misunderstanding. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. orders of cancellation and restoration discussed. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. argument on directory nature of rule 14(2). (Para 16 , 17)
5. final decision to restore lease. (Para 18 , 22)
6. court's view on cancellation's harshness. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the orders: Annexure P-2 dated 12.08.2009, P-4 dated 18.05.2010 and P-6 dated 10.07.2013 pertaining to cancellation of lease of built up booth No.155, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh on the ground of non-execution of lease deed.

2. The petitioner was allotted built up booth No.155, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh on lease hold basis for 99 years vide allotment letter dated 03.02.1997 (Annexure P-1) under the rehabilitation scheme known as "Allotment/Transfer of built up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991".

3. As per the allotment letter, the allotment was to be governed by the provisions of 'Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act,1952' and the Rules made thereunder and the provisions of 'Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973' (herein for short 1973 Rules')

4. The allotment was made on total premium of Rs.71,000/-. This amount included the cost of land amounting to Rs.30,000/- and the cost of structure amounting to Rs.41,000/-.

5. 50% of the cost of the structure i.e. Rs.20,500/- was to be paid within 10 days of the issue of the allotment letter. The remaining 50% was to be paid in two annual equated instalments along with interest i.e., Rs. 13,094/-. 25% of the cost of land i.e. Rs.7500/- was to be deposited within 30 days of the issue of allotment letter. The remaining 75% was to be paid in three annual equated instalments along with interest i.e. Rs.10,019/- each. In addition to the premium the annual ground rent that was payable was also specified in the allotment letter.

6. As per clause no.8 of the allotment letter the petitioner allottee was required to execute a lease deed after the expiry of one month from the date of allotment in such manner as may be directed by the Estate Officer.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that after the allotment of booth the petitioner started running his business of ready-made garments in it and he continued paying all the instalments of premium along with interest.

8. As per Rule 14 (1) of the 1973 Rules after payment of 25% of the premium the lessee is required to execute lease deed in such manner as may be directed by the Estate Officer within six months of the date of allotment or such further period as the Estate Officer may for good and sufficient reasons allow. Failure to execute the lease deed attracts the penal provisions contained in Rule 14(2) of the said rules. Rule 14 is as under:

    "Rule14(1):-Execution of lease deed.- (1) After payment of 25 per cent premium the lessee shall execute a lease deed in [Form B, B-I, B-II or C] as the case may be, in such manner as may be directed by the Estate Officer within six months of the date of allotment/auction or within such further period as the Estate Officer may, for good and sufficient reasons, allow.

    Rule14(2):- If the lessee fails to execute a lease deed in accordance with sub-rule (1) of this rule, the Estate Officer may cancel the lease and forfeit a sum up to 25 per cent of the premium:

    Provided that before taking action under sub-rule (2) of this rule, the Estate Officer shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the lessee of being heard."

9. As the petitioner/lessee failed to execute the lease deed within the aforesaid period, show-cause notice dated 05-09-2002 was issued to him by the respondent No.3- Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh as per provisions contained in Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) (Service of Notices) Rules,1974.

10. It is contended on behalf of the petit

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top