Paramjit Singh Sandhu vs Chandigarh Housing Board and Another

V.K. Bali, J.—Paramjit Singh Sandhu, petitioner, in the present writ filed by him under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the order Annexure P. 8 vide which Chandigarh Housing Board, respondent No. 1 herein, has cancelled the registration/allocation of dwelling unit allotted to him vide order Annexure P.1 dated 31.12.1993.

Brief facts on which the relief aforesaid is sought to rest reveal that in the year 1993 the Chandigarh Housing Board floated a scheme for the dwelling units under the ''Housing Scheme for NRI''s, Government Employees and General Public at the Modern Housing Complex, Phase-III, Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh". Pursuant to the scheme, aforesaid petitioner applied and along with that he deposited an amount of Rs. 35,000/- on 31.12.1993 and vide letter, Annexure P. 1 he was allocated one dwelling unit. As per the terms of allotment, the petitioner was supposed to deposit, an amount of Rs. 65,000/- within a period of 30 days in token of acceptance of the offer and vide letter, Annexure P. 2, petitioner deposited the said amount. After paying Rs. 65,000/- the petitioner was further supposed to deposit 5 instalments of Rs. 80,000/- each and rest of the amount was to be paid when the possession was to be delivered to him. The first instalment was payable on 10.4.1994, 2nd on 10.7.94, 3rd on 10.10.94 fourth on 10.1.95 and 5th on 10.4.1995. As the petitioner was unable to pay the first quarterly instalment in time he prayed for extension of time vide his letter dated 6.4.1994. This request was allowed by respondent-Board and the petitioner was permitted to deposit the first instalment by 10 7.1994. It is here that the petitioner is said to have committed default resulting into reminder sent by the Board to him vide Annexure P. 5 dated 16.8.1994. When this also, did not evoke much interest with the petitioner, he was issued a show cause notice on 9.9.1994 vide Annexure P. 6 and vide order dated 5.12.1994, Annexure P. 8, the order allocating him a dwelling unit was cancelled. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

The cause of the petitioner has been opposed and in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-Board, the facts detailed above have, however, not been disputed. It is, however, the stand of the Board, that on account of non-payment of various amounts detailed above and terms of allotment order, the Board was well within its right to cancel the dwelling unit allotted to the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the records of the case.

The main contention of Mr. Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as per the terms and conditions, relevant part of which has been extracted at page No. 3 in para 6 of the writ petition, if the payments of registration money or subsequent quarterly instalments were not made by the due date of payment, as prescribed in the acceptance cum demand letter, the allottee was liable to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent, 24 per cent, 24 per cent and 30 per cent per annum for the first, second, third and fourth month respectively. It is thereafter that no extension could be given. These being the stipulations with regard to payments, petitioner as a matter of right could pay the first instalment within four months from the date when the same fell due i.e. April 10, 1994. However, the petitioner, under a wrong advice, made an application for extension of time for payment of first instalment, which was not required as the first instalment could be paid by August 10, 1994. Likewise second instalment which was due on July 10, 1994 could be deposited by the petitioner by November 10, 1994. That being the situation, petitioner could not be issued show cause for cancelling the dwelling unit allotted to him, for non-payment of second instalment.

The learned counsel for the Board, however, contends that it is, universal practice accepted in the Board that if the due instalments are not paid in time, the Board shall be within its rights to proceed to cancel the dwelling unit of the allottee for not paying the first instalment.

Before I further proceed in the matter, it requires to be mentioned that during the pendency of the petition i. e. when the matter was before the motion bench, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 6,35,000/- by way of two separate demand drafts and that concededly is Rs. 6.55 lacs which the petitioner was required to pay. At this stage Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram says that the amount may be few thousands more or less.

This is a case between a citizen who seeks a flat/dwelling unit so, necessarily required by a person and the Govt. The petitioner has actually paid almost the entire amount towards principal. I am also of the considered view that the respondent-Board could not proceed to cancel the flat allotted to the petitioner on account of his non-depositing the second instalment, as the said instalment could be paid with interest within 4 months and prior to 4 months a show cause notice was given. If proceedings were initiated against the petitioner so as to cancel the unit allotted to him for non-payment of one instalment it is possible that the respondent may have taken a lenient view. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner has now deposited almost the entire amount towards principal, the Court thinks the justice would be met if the petitioner is restored the dwelling unit subject to his paying the interest as envisaged under the scheme of allotment for such dwelling units. The order cancelling the dwelling unit conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure P-8 is thus quashed subject to his depositing the entire arrears inclusive of interest within a month from the date, the petitioner is intimated the amount he is required to pay. This petition is allowed in the above terms. Further direction is issued to the Board to intimate to the petitioner the exact amount which is required to be paid by him within 4 weeks from today. The parties are left to bear their own costs.