CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATOR & ORS. & ETC. ETC.versusMANJIT KUMAR GULATI & ORS. & ETC. ETC.

                 [2024] 12 S.C.R. 947 : 2024 INSC 959

             Chandigarh Administrator & Ors. & Etc. Etc.
                                v.
               Manjit Kumar Gulati & Ors. & Etc. Etc.
                 (Civil Appeal No(s). 14151-14152 of 2024)
                              10 December 2024
           [Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       The respondents-allottees had failed to clear the outstanding
       dues of the allotted booth site, despite sufficient opportunities of
       hearing given to the allottees to clear the said outstanding dues.
       Whether the High Court committed error in restoring the allotment
       and directing them to pay the outstanding amount.

                                  Headnotes†
       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

* Author
948                                                            [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       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]

                                Case Law Cited
       Brij Mohan v. Chief Administrator and Others, AIR 1980 P&H
       236 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971;
       Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973.

                               List of Keywords
       Allotment of booth site; Sufficient opportunity of hearing;
       Outstanding amount; Tenant; Conditions of auction; Due process
       of law; Proxy litigation.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 14151-
       14152 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 14.01.2015 of the High Court
       of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP Nos .6866 and 8467
       of 1999

                           Appearances for Parties
       Varun Chugh, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advs. for the Appellants.
       Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Umang Shankar, Advs. for the
       Respondents.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                          949

             Chandigarh Administrator & Ors. & Etc. Etc. v.
                Manjit Kumar Gulati & Ors. & Etc. Etc.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment
     Bela M. Trivedi, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   Both the Appeals arise out of the common impugned Order dated
     14.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
     Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.6866 of 1999 & C.W.P. No.8467 of 1999,
     whereby the High Court has allowed both the writ petitions. The
     operative part of the impugned order reads as under: -
          “Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and the
          order of resumption of the plot in question (Annexure
          P4) is quashed and the plot allotted to the allottee is
          ordered to be restored to him. Resultantly, order dated
          6.10.1998 (Annexure P2) passed in appeal, order dated
          15.4.1999 (Annexure P3) passed in revision under the 1973
          Rules as well as order dated 14.5.199 (Annexure P5)
          passed in appeal under the Public Premises Act are also
          quashed.
          Further, we direct the respondents to calculate and
          communicate the outstanding amount, requiring the
          petitioner to deposit the amount in question. The
          respondents shall also communicate the formalities, if
          any, required to be completed by the petitioners within one
          month from today. On issuance of such letter, the petitioner
          shall deposit the amount claimed and shall complete the
          formalities, if any, within three months thereafter. In case
          the petitioner fails to make payment within the time granted,
          the order of resumption shall be revived.
          It is further made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled
          to get the amount deposited by him towards outstanding
          payments adjusted or he may recover the same by any
          other mode from the allottee/landlord.”
3.   This Court vide the order dated 21.01.2016 while issuing notices in
     the SLPs had stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and
     order passed by the High Court.
950                                                           [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


4.     The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that: -
       (i)    The appellants sold the Booth site No. 14, Sector 46-C,
              Chandigarh admeasuring 25.09 sq. yds. to the respondents –
              Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as “the
              allottees”) in an open auction on 99 years leasehold basis
              on 12.02.1989. The allotment letter was issued to the allottees
              on payment of 25% of the premium amount of the auctioned site
              on 31.05.1989. The balance 75% of the cost of the auctioned site
              was to be paid by the allottees in three equal annual installments
              alongwith the interest thereon. The first installment due was to
              be paid by the allottees on 12.02.1990. However, they failed to
              do so and, therefore, a show cause notice dated 14.09.1990
              was issued to them under Rule 12 (3) of the Chandigarh Lease
              Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
              the “Rules of 1973”). Thereafter, number of times, opportunities
              were granted to the said allottees for personal hearing, and
              make payment however, they failed to appear before the
              concerned authorities. As a result thereof, the Assistant Estate
              Office cancelled the lease of the said respondents – allottees
              vide the order dated 20.11.1991.
       (ii)   The allottees being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal
              before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, who, vide order
              dated 12.10.1992 disposed of the said appeal by directing the
              respondents – allottees to pay the entire amount of premium
              with interest thereon, the amount of penalties etc. within 15
              days. It was further directed that if the respondents – allottees
              complied with the said order, the site would stand restored to
              them, otherwise, the order of Estate Officer shall stand operative
              and the lease of the site shall stand cancelled.
       (iii) The respondents – allottees, i.e., Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors.
             challenged the order dated 12.10.1992 passed by the Chief
             Administrator, Chandigarh before the Advisor, Chandigarh
             on 07.04.1999 by filing a petition being No.26 of 1999, which
             came to be dismissed by the Advisor, Chandigarh vide the
             order dated 07.04.1999.
       (iv) The alleged tenant – M/s. Mohit Medicos, also filed an
            appeal before the Chief Administrator challenging the order
            dated 20.11.1991 passed by the Assistant Estate Office, which
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                          951

             Chandigarh Administrator & Ors. & Etc. Etc. v.
                Manjit Kumar Gulati & Ors. & Etc. Etc.

           came to be dismissed on 06.10.1998. The said tenant also filed
           a petition being No.63 of 1998 before the Advisor, Chandigarh,
           which came to be dismissed vide the order dated 15.04.1999.
     (v)   The allottees – Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. filed writ petition
           being C.W.P. No.6866 of 1999 and the alleged tenant –
           M/s. Mohit Medicos filed separate writ petition being C.W.P.
           No.8467 of 1999, challenging the orders passed by the
           Authorities of the appellants, and seeking restoration of the
           site in question.
     (vi) Both the writ petitions having been allowed by the High Court
          vide the common impugned order as stated hereinabove, the
          appellants have preferred the instant Appeals.
5.   It may be noted that the respondents – allottees – Manjit Kumar Gulati
     and Ors. have chosen to remain absent before this Court, though duly
     served with the notices, as per the Office Report dated 26.11.2024.
6.   We have heard learned counsel, Mr. Varun Chugh appearing for the
     appellants in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2283-2284
     of 2016 and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing
     for the respondent(s) – alleged tenant – M/s. Mohit Medicos in Civil
     Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.2284 of 2016.
7.   It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
     appellants that since the allottees had failed to make payment of the
     remaining 75% of the premium amount as per the terms and conditions
     of the auction sale, the lease of the auction site was cancelled by
     the Assistant Estate Office, after giving sufficient opportunities to
     the allottees to clear the outstanding dues, and the said order was
     confirmed by the Chief Administrator. The revision petition filed by
     the allottees was also dismissed by the Advisor, Chandigarh on the
     ground of gross delay. Hence, according to him, the High Court, in
     exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, should not have interfered
     with the said orders passed by the statutory authorities.
8.   He further submitted that the respondent(s) – M/s. Mohit Medicos
     alleging to be the tenant is the proxy litigant and had no locus standi
     to file the writ petition before the High Court, more particularly, when
     the said respondents had failed to produce any document to show
     any lease agreement between the original allottees and the said
     respondent(s) - tenant.
952                                                         [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


9.     However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent(s) –
       alleged tenant M/s. Mohit Medicos, placing reliance on the decision
       of Punjab and Haryana High Court, rendered by the Full Bench in
       Brij Mohan Vs. Chief Administrator and others,1 submitted that
       the expression “transferee” contained in clause (k) of Section 2 of the
       Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 included
       the “lessee”, and therefore the respondent(s) – M/s. Mohit Medicos
       had the locus standi to file the writ petition before the High Court
       challenging the orders passed by the statutory authorities, as well as
       the order passed in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
       Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Premises
       Act”). He fairly submitted that the said respondent(s) had not produced
       on record any document to show that that M/s. Mohit Medicos was
       the tenant of the allottees – Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors.
10. At the outset, it may be noted that undisputedly the original
    allotment made in favour of the allottees – Manjit Kumar Gulati and
    Ors. was cancelled by the Assistant Estate Office vide the order
    dated 20.11.1991 after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing
    to the allottees by issuing show cause notice dated 14.09.1990,
    however, the allottees had failed to clear the outstanding dues. In
    the appeal preferred by the said allottees, the Chief Administrator,
    Chandigarh, considering the submission made by the learned counsel
    for the allottees, had given the allottees last opportunity to liquidate
    their liability and retain the lease of the site in question by paying the
    entire amount of premium with interest etc., within 15 days from the
    date of the passing of the order dated 12.10.1992. The respondents-
    allottees instead of complying with the said order preferred a petition
    before the Advisor to the Administrator U.T., Chandigarh after a delay
    of about 5 and half years, which also came to dismissed by the
    Advisor, vide order 07.04.1999 on the ground of being time barred.
11. Similar challenge made by the so-called tenant of the said allottees
    i.e., M/s. Mohit Medicos also came to be dismissed by the Advisor.
    Under the circumstances, despite sufficient opportunities of hearing
    given to the allottees to clear the outstanding dues, the respondents –
    allottees had failed to clear the same. Hence, the High Court had
    committed gross error in allowing the writ petitions by holding that


1    AIR 1980 P&H 236
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       953

                Chandigarh Administrator & Ors. & Etc. Etc. v.
                   Manjit Kumar Gulati & Ors. & Etc. Etc.

     the tenant, i.e., M/s. Mohit Medicos 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 - Manjit Kumar
     Gulati and Ors. 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, M/s. Mohit Medicos, especially when there was
     nothing on record to suggest that M/s. Mohit Medicos was the tenant
     of the original allottees - Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. The High Court
     had completely lost sight of the said factual aspects of the matter
     while allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents – allottees
     and the so called tenant – M/s. Mohit Medicos. The decision of FULL
     Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court relied upon by the learned
     senior counsel for the respondent(s) - tenant has no application to
     the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the respondent(s) – M/s.
     Mohit Medicos, by no stretch of imagination could be said to be a
     tenant of the original allottees, in absence of any material placed
     on record, to substantiate the same. 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.
12. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court
    being erroneous is set aside. The Appeals are allowed accordingly.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan