Chandigarh Administration v. Hari Ram
Background
A Chandigarh resident was allotted a commercial booth on a 99-year lease in 1996 but defaulted on paying three annual instalments and ground rent over several years, despite being given around twenty-six opportunities to pay. The Administration cancelled the allotment and initiated eviction, which the allottee challenged through several administrative appeals, a revision, and finally a writ petition; the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the eviction order and directed a deposited amount be returned so he could pay his outstanding dues. The Chandigarh Administration appealed this to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting further leniency given the allottee's prolonged and repeated default despite numerous opportunities, and that he could not expect to pay only the 1996 premium once the property's market value had risen roughly thirty-fold by the mid-2010s. However, balancing both sides' interests, the Court did not fully restore the cancellation; instead, it fixed a middle-ground valuation (the 2010 market value) and directed the allottee to pay the balance due within six months, after which the Administration would have to confirm the allotment, but if he failed to pay in time, the Administration could proceed with eviction. The Court expressly stated this tailored outcome was based on the case's specific facts and should not be treated as a precedent.
Lesson Learnt
Defaulting repeatedly on payment obligations under a government lease can validly lead to cancellation, and courts will not indefinitely shield a defaulting allottee from the consequences merely on hardship grounds, but courts may still craft a one-time, non-precedential compromise that balances fairness to both the public authority and a long-term occupant.