49 of 1999.
The appellant companytended that despite the companystruction of the said building it companyld number immediately be let out to the tenants as the area was under developed and as parking and approach road had number been provided and furthermore several jhuggis existed near the site.
Clause 8 A of the said letter of allotment, however, stipulated levy of interest 12 per annum, penalty and power of resumption in the event of delayed payment of instalments upon grant of an opportunity of being heard in the following terms 8 A. After companysidering the cause, if any,shown by the lessee in pursuance of the aforesaid numberice, the Estate Officer may either allow payment of instalment rent with penalty which may extend to 100 of the amount due and interest 12 P.A., for the delayed period, order cancellation of lease and forfeit the whole part of the amount already paid.
It is number in dispute that 25 of the allotment price was required to be deposited within 30 days of auction and upon companypliance of the said term, the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, companyfirmed the lease of the said site in favour of the purchasers vide allotment letter dated 26.4.1988.
The second instalment which was due in 1989 had number been paid by the appellant.
A further sum of Rs.
The appellant herein upon entering into possession of the purchased site, companystructed a six storied building including the basement floor.
The Estate Officer and the Chief Administrator would be bound to render assistance in the preparation of accounts and accept payment but subject to the result of these petitions.
HEAD OUTSTANDING AMOUNT Principal Amount Nil Interest Amount Rs.
However, as per orders of the Honourable Supreme Court of India the total due amount after deducting Rs.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, the appellant by pay orders dated 27.3.1998, 17.2.1998 and 15.7.1998 tendered a total sum of Rs.
6,00,000 out of the total sum of Rs.
25,00,000 in terms whereof allegedly the entire principal amount due towards instalments and ground rent was cleared.
The appellant herein filed Civil Appeal No.
On 2.1.1998, he resubmitted the same to the Estate Officer within its validity period.
By reason of the impugned judgment dated 19.11.1996, the writ petition was dismissed with companyts.
BACKGROUND FACT The factual matrix of the matter is being numbericed from Civi1 Appeal No.
However, it appears that the pay order dated 31.10.1996 for a sum of Rs.
2003 Supp 6 SCR 1235 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. SINHA, J. These appeals involving companymon questions of law and fact were taken upto for hearing together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
28,70,000 The appellant herein deposited a sum of Rs.
3,55,027 including ground rent.
It appears from the accounts that the appellant had made over payment by Rs.
The site bearing No.
8,91,960 towards the amount due as also ground rent by paying the amounts of Rs.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.
5,00,000 was deposited on 31.10.1996 in terms of an order of the High Court, whereafter the following statement of accounts was prepared by the Estate Officer SI.
2,50,000 on 5.4.1990, Rs.
7 interest, as, referred to hereinbefore, was leviable on the balance 75 premium as companytained in the letter of Allotment in three equal instalments together with ground rent.
The appellant, however, is stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.
13,47,300 on 27.3.1997 in terms whereof according to the appellant all outstanding amount with interest calculated 15 per annum would have been cleared.
In the event of the purchaser opting for payment in instalments, 7 interest was payable.
3,723.
49 of 1999 against the main order and Civil Appeal against the order of the High Court refusing to review its earlier order.
The Estate Officer in response to the said letter by his order dated 18.3.1998 intimated to the appellant the account showing dues of a further sum of Rs.
1,50,000 on 25.6.1990 and Rs.
SCO 126 127, Sector 34 A, Chandigarh was purchased on lease hold basis by the appellant in open .auction held on 13.3.1988.
5,00,000 which the appellant tendered to the Estate Officer was returned.
This Court by an order dated 18.2.1998 while issuing numberice on the Special Leave Petition directed There shall be an ad interim stay of resumption of the property.
71,750 and 10 F.F. amounting to Rs.
A review application was filed by the appellant but the High Court dismissed the same.
The petitioners, in the meanwhile, are directed to approach the Estate Officer and have their account prepared of all the dues as due uptil 31st March, 1998 and make payment thereof before that date.
Upon charging of ground rent for the period 13.3.1998 to 10.4.1998 for a sum of Rs.
By an order dated 29.3.1996, the Estate Officer directed the appellant and all other persons in occupation to vacate the said premises.
1,50,000 on 2.5.1990, Rs.
50,000 on 13.1.1992.
6,00,000 was deposited.
25,68,464 Forfeiture Amount Nil Maximum 10 of the allotment price i.e.Rs.
A proceeding for cancellation of the lease by way of resumption of the land and building thereafter, was initiated.
An application for amendment to the writ petition was filed question ing the order of eviction passed under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971.
An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the District Judge by an order dated 17.4.1996.
The appellant deposited the said amount and forwarded the pay order therefor along with his letter dated 19.3.1998.
Liberty, however, was given to the appellant to give option to purchase the property in terms of Section 21A of the Rules.
The short question which arises for companysideration in these appeals centres round the power of resumption of land building of the first respondent in favour of the appellants under the Capital of Punjab Development and regulation Act, 1952 read with the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973 and the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971.
