Summary
The Court confirmed resumption of a commercial booth allotted by HUDA after repeated payment defaults. The purchaser had remained in possession for more than two decades, failed to use successive opportunities to clear dues, and assigned the litigation through a power of attorney. Article 142 did not warrant relief in those circumstances. The Court directed adjustment of the deposited money against occupation charges, with refund of any surplus and liberty to recover any shortfall.
Issues
- Whether repeated default and prolonged possession justified interference with resumption.
- Whether relief should be granted under Article 142 and how the court deposit should be applied.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaDeclined discretionary relief to the repeatedly defaulting allottee in the circumstances of the case. (¶ 14)
Held
- After paying the initial quarter of the price, the appellant defaulted despite repeated notices. His appeal and restoration applications had also suffered defaults and prolonged delay. These circumstances justified refusal to disturb resumption. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- The power of attorney executed after resumption appeared to assign the litigation. Prolonged possession, repeated defaults and unwillingness even before the Court to pay a fair substantial amount did not justify invoking Article 142. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- HUDA could withdraw the court deposit of Rs 20 lakhs with accrued interest towards occupation charges. It was to compute charges from 6 May 1996 and adjust the deposited money within two months; any surplus was refundable with six per cent annual interest, while any shortfall could be pursued through appropriate recovery proceedings. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal disposed of confirming resumption, with directions for adjustment of occupation charges and refund of surplus or lawful recovery of a shortfall. No order as to costs.