SADHU RAM KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRSTLY, the factual-matrix. Om Parkash respondent (No. 3) purchased site No. 180 in Grain Market, Chandigarh, in an auction held by respondent No. 2-the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on 6th of February, 1972, Since in terms of the sale the vendee-respondent failed to pay the instalments, the said site was resumed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 11th of February, 1975 (copy Annexure P-1) passed under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) (Chandigarh Amendment) Act, 19 73, (for short, the Act), even though in the meantime the respondent No. 3 had raised a building thereupon. Om Parkash preferred an appeal against this order of resumption under Section 10 (1) of the Act and the same was disposed of by the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 1st of September, 1975 (copy Annexure P-2 in C. W. P. No. 2077 of 1980), with the stipulation that in case the vendee paid all the amount due from him along with interest by 31st October, 1975, the site be restored to him Om Parkash, however, failed to carry out this condition of the order, according to him on account of his financial stringency. Instead, he preferred a revision petition under Section 10 (4) of the Act before the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh. This petition was dismissed by the latter on 20th of December, 1979. The possession of the site and the building was later on taken by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, as a result of the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the 1971 Act ). At a subsequent stage Om Parkash managed to raise funds and vide his letter dated 14th of May, 1980 (copy Annexure P-3 in C. W. P. No. 2077 of 1980), sent a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, for payment of the amount standing due from him. He also requested the said officer that in case any more amount was due from him, he be duly intimated. As the Estate Officer failed to respond, Om Parkash filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2077 of 1980, claiming the restoration of possession to him on various grounds. This petition of his has been disposed of along with Civil Writ Petition No. 6928 of 1986 filed by the present appellants, that is, Nauhria Ram and M/s Sadhu Ram Krishan Kumar. Though both the writ petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, yet Om Parkash petitioner was granted the relief that he may "still exercise the option for repurchasing the site in dispute under the provisions of Rule 11-D of the Rules and in that case the letter Annexure P-3 shall be deemed to be such request". As a matter of fact by now the site has been restored to Om Parkash and the possession of the same was delivered to him on 7th of July, 1990.

(2.) THE claim of the appellants in that petition and as in this appeal, is that Nauhria Ram as partner of firm M/s Sadhu Ram Krishan Kumar, was inducted as a tenant in a portion of the abovesaid building in the year 1974 by Om Parkash at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- but later on as more area was let out to him the rent was raised to Rs. 550/- per month. Since he was not joined as a party in the proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer under the 1971 Act, he was not bound by the order of eviction dated 22nd of November, 1976, passed against Om Parkash. He as a matter of fact preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, against the order of the Estate Officer but the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, on 12th of December, 1977 (copy Annexure R-2), with the following observations :

(3.) DURING the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 2077 of 1980 [ Decision reported as (1990-2) 98 P. L. R. 289-Editor ] filed by Om Parkash, the Estate Officer served Nauhria Ram appellant with an order under Section 5 (1) of the 1971 Act, to vacate the property in question. This made him file the present Civil Writ Petition No. 6928 of 1986, on the pleas that (i) he is not bound by the proceedings initiated against Om Parkash under the 1971 Act in spite of the fact that his appeal against the order of eviction under the said Act had been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, on 12-12-1971; and (ii) the resumption proceedings were themselves without jurisdiction as the building constructed by the vendee Om Parkash could not be taken as part of the site sold to him and thus could not be treated as a public premises.