High Court comes to Tehal Singh’s rescue

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 7

A nearly 25-year-old battle between Sector 22 eatery “Tehal Singh” and the Union Territory of Chandigarh has come to an end with the Punjab and Haryana High Court paving the way for the continuation of his 33-year-old business from the same premises.

Tehal Singh had moved the High Court way back in 1994, seeking the quashing of lease cancellation and eviction orders dated January 12, 1988, and February 25, 1988, passed by the UT Estate Officer. Directions were also sought to the official respondents not to evict the petitioner from booth number 1121-A, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, on the grounds that he had not committed default in the payment of rent.

In his petition placed before the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudip Ahluwalia, his counsel Anand Chhibbar claimed the petitioner could not be termed unauthorised occupant and was not liable to be punished for the omission and commissions of the original lessee, Sukhdev Singh.

The Bench was told that the petitioner was in occupation of the property as a tenant. It was auctioned on a leasehold basis in January, 1984, for Rs 2,31,000 in favour of Sukhdev Singh.

He deposited 25 per cent of the premium of the lease before the allotment letter was issued to him.

As per a condition in the allotment, he was required to pay the balance 75 per cent in three annual equated instalments together with interest and annual ground rent for 99 years. 

The amount was not paid and the lease was cancelled. The order of cancellation was set aside in an appeal and Sukhdev Singh was given an opportunity to deposit the entire outstanding amount by August 1991. He did not pay within the time provided, following which the order passed by the Estate Officer for cancellation of lease came into operation.

As he did not file any revision, the eviction order was passed against Sukhdev Singh as well as the occupier-petitioner. In the petition, the petitioner, in occupation of the premises, challenged the eviction and the lease cancellation order.

The petitioner asked for re-auctioning of the property before being allowed to participate in it. However, the respondents claimed the booth could not be re-auctioned unless it was vacated. Sukhdev Singh, meanwhile, died. The petitioner claimed Sukhdev Singh had bequeathed all his interests in his favour by way of a will executed during his life time.

Disposing of the petition after hearing senior advocate Chhibbar at length, the Bench directed the respondent-authorities to have the booth’s present valuation assessed keeping the base price of a booth site sold in 2009. The Bench directed the figure to be communicated to the petitioner. He, in turn, would have to pay the assessed value minus the payments already made. “In case the petitioner fails to do so, not only the resumption order passed against him shall stand revived, also the eviction order passed against him shall become operative forthwith,” the Bench added.