(1.) THE petitioner alongwith some of his family members purchased SCO site No. 219, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh in an open auction held on 5.1.1984 at a premium of Rs. 3,66,000/- and paid 25% of the premium money amounting to Rs. 91,500/- at the time of auction. A copy of the allotment letter, Annexure P-1, dated 28.3.1984 was issued to the petitioner. As per Clause 5 of the allotment letter, the balance of 75% together with interest and ground rent was to be paid in three equal instalments. The petitioner defaulted in the payment of the first instalment. It appears that the respondent-Administration initiated proceedings for the cancellation of the lease on this account. On notice the petitioner put in appearance and took several dates to make good the default. As the default was not cleared, the Estate Officer, vide his order dated 29.3.1988, Annexure P-3, cancelled the lease and also forfeited 10% of the amount, i.e. Rs. 36,000/-. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, who vide his order dated 19.4.1989, Annexure P-4, set aside the orders of the Estate Officer and gave more time to the petitioner to make good the amount due with a stipulation that in case the amount was not paid within the time stipulated, the order of the Estate Officer would become operative. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition before the adviser to the Administrator and while the matter was yet pending, made certain payments on account of the sums due. The Adviser in his order dated 1.4.1992, Annexure P- 5, observed that as on that date only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was due from the petitioner but as there appeared to be some dispute with regard to the calculations, the exact amount payable was to be determined and, thereafter, paid by the petitioner. It is the admitted position that pursuant to this order, the petitioner has cleared all the amounts due against him. The present writ petition has been filed in which the only prayer is that the forfeiture of 10% of the premium amount, i.e. Rs. 36,000/- should not have been made as cancellation of the lease had been set aside.
(2.) IN the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, the broad facts have not been denied.
(3.) IT would be clear from the reading of the underlined portion that the cancellation of the lease or forfeiture of the premium must go on simultaneously. In case there is no cancellation of the lease, the question of forfeiture would not arise. It is further clear that it is open to the Estate Officer to cancel the lease and a discretion left to him to either forfeit or not to forfeit the whole or part of the amount paid as premium. We are, therefore, of the opinion that forfeiture of Rs. 36,600/- which represents 10% of the premium money was wholly uncalled for as the cancellation of the lease having been set aside by the Authorities, the question of forfeiture would not arise.