TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and the order of resumption of the plot in question (Annexure P4) is quashed and the plot allotted to the allottee is ordered to be restored to him. Resultantly, order dated 6.10.1998 (Annexure P2) passed in appeal, order dated 15.4.1999 (Annexure P3) passed in revision under the 1973 Rules as well as order dated 14.5.199 (Annexure P5) passed in appeal under the Public Premises Act are also quashed. Further, we direct the respondents to calculate and communicate the outstanding amount, requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount in question. The respondents shall also communicate the formalities, if any, required to be completed by the petitioners within one month from to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1973"). Thereafter, number of times, opportunities were granted to the said allottees for personal hearing, and make payment however, they failed to appear before the concerned authorities. As a result thereof, the Assistant Estate Office cancelled the lease of the said respondents - allottees vide the order dated 20.11.1991. (ii) The allottees being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, who, vide order dated 12.10.1992 disposed of the said appeal by directing the respondents - allottees to pay the entire amount of premium with interest thereon, the amount of penalties etc. within 15 days. It was further directed that if ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulati and Ors. have chosen to remain absent before this Court, though duly served with the notices, as per the Office Report dated 26.11.2024. 6. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. Varun Chugh appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2283-2284 of 2016 and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent(s) - alleged tenant - M/s. Mohit Medicos in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.2284 of 2016. 7. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that since the allottees had failed to make payment of the remaining 75% of the premium amount as per the terms and conditions of the auction sale, the lease of the auction site was cancelled by the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Premises Act"). He fairly submitted that the said respondent(s) had not produced on record any document to show that that M/s. Mohit Medicos was the tenant of the allottees - Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. 10. At the outset, it may be noted that undisputedly the original allotment made in favour of the allottees - Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. was cancelled by the Assistant Estate Office vide the order dated 20.11.1991 after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the allottees by issuing show cause notice dated 14.09.1990, however, the allottees had failed to clear the outstanding dues. In the appeal preferred by the said allottees, the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said allottees was cancelled by the Statutory Authority after following the due process of law, i.e., by issuing show cause notice before cancellation of allotment, and when number of opportunities of hearing were given to the allottees to clear the outstanding dues, there was no question of serving any notice to the so called tenant, M/s. Mohit Medicos, especially when there was nothing on record to suggest that M/s. Mohit Medicos was the tenant of the original allottees - Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. The High Court had completely lost sight of the said factual aspects of the matter while allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents - allottees and the so called tenant - M/s. Mohit Medicos. The decision of FULL Bench of Punjab and....