SMT. SATYA DEVI (DECEASED) NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTIVES NAMELY PAWAN KUMAR SABHARWAL AND OTHERS Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION THROUGH THE ADVISOR TO THE ADMINISTRATOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a story of rags to riches. Smt. Satya Devi was a rag picker. Slowly she collected some money and participated in an auction for the lease of Shop -Cum -Office No. 154, Sector 24 -D, Chandigarh. She gave a bid of Rs. 86,600/ -. It was accepted on October 28, 1979. She deposited 25% of the amount. thereafter, the Respondents issued the letter of allotment on December 4, 1979. On September 17, 1980 the lease deed was executed. The lessee deposited the first and second instalments. She had difficulty in depositing the third instalment. She requested for extension of time. On December 7, 1982, she made a deposit of Rs. 10,000/ -. However, more money had to be paid. when she was unable to make the deposit, the Estate Officer issued a notice and ultimately on July 21,1983 the lease was cancelled. In the meantime, the lessee had sent a draft for an amount of Rs. 14,711/ -. It was sent back to her. Even the bank draft for Rs. 10,000/ - which had been tendered by the lessees on December 7, 1982 was returned to her. The lessee filed an appeal. It was accepted by the appellate authority vide its order dated May 7, 1985. The payment of the entire outstanding amount had to be made within a period of one month. This period was extended by 15 days. However, the outstanding amount had risen to Rs. 40,000/ - as interest etc. were added. The lessee deposited an amount of Rs. 22,000/ - on July 18, 1985. However, this deposit was not accepted on the ground that it had not been made within the time granted to her. Again, the proceedings were started. On September 25, 1991, the site was restored subject to the clearance of the dues within a period of one month. By this time the amount had risen to Rs. 80,000/ -. The lessee was unable to make the deposit in one instalment. On September 28, 1992, she was ordered to be evicted. Thereafter, on November 21, 1997, the ground floor of the shop was sealed. The Petitioner requested Respondent No. 1 the Administration to allow her to make the deposit. Since the amount had risen to more than Rs. 2 lacs, she submitted a draft for Rs. 2 lacs with her application. This application was rejected by the Advisor vide order dated December 31, 1997. Hence this petition. The Petitioner prays that the orders passed by the Respondent authorities, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P -7, P -11, P -12, P -15, P -16 and P -18, be quashed.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. It has been averred that since the Petitioner had failed to make the deposit within the prescribed time, the orders of resumption have become final and that the impugned orders deserve to be upheld.

(3.) IN view of the above noted factual position, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the deposit having been made, the impugned orders may be set aside and that the Respondents be directed to restore the site to the lessee.