Where a person claiming to be a tenant of an allottee produces no document to show any lease agreement with the allottees, does he have locus standi to file a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the allottees' allotment?

Leave granted.

Both the Appeals arise out of the common impugned Order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.6866 of 1999 & C.W.P. No.8467 of 1999, whereby the High Court has allowed both the writ petitions. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under: -

This Court vide the order dated 21.01.2016 while issuing notices in the SLPs had stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that: -

It may be noted that the respondents – allottees – Manjit Kumar Gulati 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.

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.

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 Assistant Estate Office, after giving sufficient opportunities to the allottees to clear the outstanding dues, and the said order was confirmed by the Chief Administrator. The revision petition filed by the allottees was also dismissed by the Advisor, Chandigarh on the ground of gross delay. Hence, according to him, the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, should not have interfered with the said orders passed by the statutory authorities.

He further submitted that the respondent(s) – M/s. Mohit Medicos alleging to be the tenant is the proxy litigant and had no locus standi to file the writ petition before the High Court, more particularly, when the said respondents had failed to produce any document to show any lease agreement between the original allottees and the said respondent(s) - tenant.

However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent(s) – alleged tenant M/s. Mohit Medicos, placing reliance on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court, rendered by the Full Bench in Brij Mohan Vs. Chief Administrator and others[^1], submitted that the expression “transferee” contained in clause (k) of Section 2 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 included the “lessee”, and therefore the respondent(s) – M/s. Mohit Medicos had the locus standi to file the writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders passed by the statutory authorities, as well as the order passed in the Public 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.

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 Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the allottees, had given the allottees last opportunity to liquidate their liability and retain the lease of the site in question by paying the entire amount of premium with interest etc., within 15 days from the date of the passing of the order dated 12.10.1992. The respondents- allottees instead of complying with the said order preferred a petition before the Advisor to the Administrator U.T., Chandigarh after a delay of about 5 and half years, which also came to dismissed by the Advisor, vide order 07.04.1999 on the ground of being time barred.

Similar challenge made by the so-called tenant of the said allottees i.e., M/s. Mohit Medicos also came to be dismissed by the Advisor. Under the circumstances, despite sufficient opportunities of hearing given to the allottees to clear the outstanding dues, the respondents – allottees had failed to clear the same. Hence, the High Court had committed gross error in allowing the writ petitions by holding that the tenant, i.e., M/s. Mohit Medicos was not served with the notice of resumption with regard to the plot in question. Admittedly, there was no document whatsoever produced by the said alleged tenant to show that it was the tenant of the original allottees - Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. When the original allottees themselves had failed to comply with the conditions of auction sale, and when the allotment itself made in favour of the 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 Haryana High Court relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondent(s) - tenant has no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the respondent(s) – M/s. Mohit Medicos, by no stretch of imagination could be said to be a tenant of the original allottees, in absence of any material placed on record, to substantiate the same. The litigation carried forward by the said alleged tenant is nothing but a proxy litigation on behalf of the original allottees, who were the defaulters and an abuse of process of law.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court being erroneous is set aside. The Appeals are allowed accordingly. ………………………………….. J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) ………………………………….. J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA) NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 10th, 2024.