Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bimla Rani Ahluwalia vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)120PLR38
Author: Iqbal Singh
Bench: Iqbal Singh
ORDER G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. The only point involved in this case is whether the revisional authority could, while exercising the powers under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act') uphold the forfeiture ordered by the Estate Officer even though it recorded a finding that the petitioner is not guilty of misuse of the premises allotted to her.
2. Perusal of the record shows that SCO' site No. 201, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh was allotted to the petitioner on lease in the year 1984. She constructed shop-cum-office on the site in question and inducted M/s Delight Cycles Stores as tenant in the building.
3. After about 7 years of the allotment of site to her, proceedings were initiated under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1973) by the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, on the ground of misuse of the premises. After giving notice to the petitioner, which she failed to respond, the Assistant Estate Officer passed order Annexure P-1 and resumed the site on the ground of misuse. Simultaneously, he ordered forfeiture of 10% of the total premium i.e. Rs. 46,000/-..The Chief Administrator, Chandigarh who heard the appeal filed by the petitioner agreed with the Assistant Estate Officer that the petitioner had misused the premises by carrying out the business of repair of the cycles and sale thereof and on the basis of this conclusion, he dismissed the appeal. However, in the revision petition filed by her, the Advisor to the Administrator accepted the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that she had not misused the premises and in fact the premises were being used for the purpose for which the same was allotted. He, accordingly, quashed the order of resumption of the site. Notwithstanding this, the revisional authority maintained the forfeiture of 10% of the lease money.
4. After hearing Shri Rajesh Garg and Shri Ashok Aggarwal, we are satisfied that the order passed by the revisional authority upholding the order of forfeiture passed by the Assistant Estate Officer deserves to be quashed.
5. A look at the impugned order shows that after considering the arguments of the parties, the revisional authority held as under:
"After hearing the parties and going through the inspection report, one thing is very much clear that the site is being used for the purpose for which it was allotted. The petitioner (tenant) undertakes to stop the minor repair even if going on in the premises. In view of this, I set aside the impugned order, resuming the site to the owner subject to the condition that the forfeiture already imposed shall stand and be paid by the owner within 30 days reckonable from the despatch order, failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall become operative."
6. In our opinion, after having found that the petitioner was not guilty of misuse, the revisional authority was not left with the jurisdiction to uphold the forfeiture of 10% of the premium deposited by the petitioner. Thus the impugned order is liable to be invalidated partially.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-3 is partly quashed in so far as it upholds the forfeiture of the premium deposited by the petitioner. The respondent are directed to refund the amount of forfeiture which the petitioner has deposited on 26.8.1994 within a period of one month from today, failing which she shall become entitled to get interest on the said amount at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 26.8.1994.
8. Before parting with the case, we record the undertaking given by Shri Garg, counsel for the petitioner that no repair work of the old bicycles will be carried out on the premises in question.
9. Copy of the order be given Dasti on payment of prescribed fee.