(O&M) Chand Kumar Bhatia vs The Commissioner Gurgaon Division & Ors.

CWP-5087-2004 (O&M) [1]
291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CWP-5087-2004 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.10.2026
Chand Kumar Bhatia
...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA
Present: Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Brijesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate and
Mr. Ram Lal Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner along with
Mr. Chand Kumar Bhatia, Petitioner in person.
Mr. S.K. Panwar, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated
07.11.2003 (Annexure P-10) and 27.03.2003 (Annexure P-9) passed by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively and also to the action of respondent
No.3 demanding the cost of the house at new rates.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of
permanent injunction on the plea that applications were invited from the
General Public for MIG ‘A’, MIG ‘B’, EWS and LIG flats/residential houses
in Sector 10, Faridabad, and the present petitioner had made an application
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-5087-2004 (O&M) [2]
for the purchase of a house of type MIG ‘A’ at Faridabad, and an initial
payment of Rs.3,000/- was made by the petitioner. It is submitted that it was
his case that his name figures at Sr. No.185 and persons up to Sr. No.187
were given flats, but the petitioner was not given flat. It is stated that
although the said issue was held against the petitioner but the suit of the
petitioner was decreed and a mandate was issued to the defendants to allot
one house of MIG type in Sector 28, Faridabad. Relevant portion of the
decree which has been highlighted is reproduced herein below:
“23. As a corollary of my findings on various issues above, it
follows that the suit of the plaintiff has to be decreed and the same
is accordingly decreed hereby. A mandate is issued to the
defendants to allot one house of MIG type in Sector-28 Faridabad
to the plaintiff as 3 houses of this type are lying unallotted.
Plaintiff will have to pay the balance amount in respect of that
house in accordance with law. In the circumstances parties are
left to bear their own costs. Defendants will comply this direction
within a month from today otherwise the plaintiff will be entitled
to execute this decree by filing execution petition. Decree-sheet be
drawn accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court.
Dated: 6.8.1984”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was the
understanding of the petitioner that the amount was to be paid by the
petitioner in accordance with the original price in the year 1976 and thus, the
petitioner did not pay the amount as was sought to be charged by the
respondents, as the said amount was being charged by the respondents on
the basis of the prevailing price on the date of issuance of the
agreement/allotment letter dated 10.07.1987. It is submitted that on account
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-5087-2004 (O&M) [3]
of non-payment, the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated under
the Haryana Public Premises (Recovery of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 and
the impugned orders of eviction were passed. It is further submitted that the
said orders were challenged by filing the present writ petition and that on
01.04.2004, a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court was pleased to issue
notice of motion and grant stay on the dispossession of the petitioner subject
to certain conditions. Order dated 01.04.2004 which has been highlighted is
reproduced herein below:
“Present: Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate
In tune with the order passed by Hon’ble Bench, then seized
of the matter, dated 23.3.2004, learned counsel, on instructions
from the petitioner, who is present in Court, states that the
petitioner would, indeed, deposit the entire price specified in the
hire purchase agreement together with interest at the rate of 6%
within a period of two months from today , but the same may not
prejudice the cause of the petitioner to argue the matter on the
merit of the case.
Notice of motion for 27.5.2004.
Stay dispossession, subject to the petitioner depositing the
amount with interest, as mentioned above, within a period of two
months from today after adjusting the amount, if any, already
deposited .
April 1, 2004”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner has already deposited the entire amount in pursuance of the said
order and has thus duly complied with the same. It is submitted that the
petitioner is in possession of the property till date and since the entire
amount, which was due from the petitioner, even as per the agreement dated
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-5087-2004 (O&M) [4]
10.07.1987, along with interest @ 6% per annum, has been paid, thus, the
resumption/eviction order should be set aside. It is further argued that it is a
matter of settled law that the resumption order should be passed as a last
resort. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s
Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T. Chandigarh, reported as 2004(1) RCR
(Civil), 540. It is further submitted that the fact that the petitioner had
deposited the money also shows his bona fide.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has
argued that after passing of the judgment and decree dated 06.08.1984, the
petitioner had entered into the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement dated
10.07.1987, and in the said agreement, it was specifically mentioned that the
tentative price of the plot in question was Rs.1,51,600/- and the fact that the
petitioner had already paid an amount of Rs.37,900/- was also noticed. It is
submitted that since the petitioner did not pay the said amount, show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.11.1989 under Section 51(1) of the
Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 for ejectment. It is submitted that since
the petitioner still did not pay the money, the proceedings under the Haryana
Public Premises (Recovery of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 were initiated and
the eviction order was passed against the petitioner by the Collector on
27.03.2003 and that the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on
07.11.2003.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that
although in pursuance of the order dated 01.04.2004, the amount of
Rs.2,28,550/- has been deposited by the petitioner on 31.05.2004 but it is the
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-5087-2004 (O&M) [5]
case of the respondents that the total amount due as on 31.10.2026 is
approximately Rs.3,45,339/- (as the rate of interest applied is 10% per
annum and not 6% per annum), and in case the petitioner wishes to save
resumption of the premises, then the petitioner should also pay the said
money which is due to the respondents. The tentative chart produced on
behalf of the respondents is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Calculation sheet of House No.2264/MIG, HBC, Sector-28, Faridabad
(Subject to Audit)*
(A)
Total tentative cost of house = 151600
Less amount received before possession = 37900
Amount due as on 24.06.1987 = 113700
Add Interest w.e.f. 24.06.1987 to 30.05.2004 @ = 192574
10% simple interest for 16 years and 342 days
Total = 306274
Less amount received on dated 31.05.2004 = 228550
amount due as on 31.05.2004 = 77724
Add Interest w.e.f. 31.05.2004 to 31.10.2026 = 174272
for 22 years and 154 days @ 10% simple interest
Amount due as on 31.10.2026 = 251996
(B) IIIrd ELC-
ELC due as on 1.02.1993 = 8211
Add interest w.e.f. 01.02.1993 to 02.04.2000 = 23604
for 28 qtr and 62 days @ 15% quarterly compound
Add Interest w.e.f. 03.04.2004 to 31.10.2026 = 32738
for 26 years and 212 days @ 15% simple interest on Rs.8211
Amount due as on 31.10.2026 = 56342
Amount due as on 31.10.2026 (A+B) = 308338
Add GST @ 12% = 37001
Total amount due as on 31.10.2026 = 345339 ”
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-5087-2004 (O&M) [6]
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted
that the amount sought to be charged from the petitioner is highly excessive,
moreso on the aspect of interest and it is the case of the petitioner that he has
paid the entire amount. It is further submitted that in case the details of any
such demand are given to the petitioner, then the petitioner would duly reply
to the same and the matter on the aspect of said dues be considered
independently after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his
authorized representatives. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner had
paid an amount of Rs.2,28,550/- on 31.05.2004, in addition to the amount of
Rs.37,900/- which had been paid by the petitioner before 24.06.1987 and
thus, had duly complied with the order dated 01.04.2004 and that the said
aspects are also duly proved from the tentative chart produced on behalf of
the respondents, which has been reproduced hereinabove. It is highlighted
that the amount of Rs.1,13,700/- was outstanding as on 24.06.1987 as per
the abovesaid chart and the amount on account of interest calculated by
taking the rate of interest as 6% per annum for 16 years and 342 days on
Rs.1,13,700/- comes to approximately Rs.1,15,000/- and in case the said
amount is added to Rs.1,13,700/- (which was due on 24.06.1987) then the
same comes to Rs.2,28,700/- (approximately), which amount has been
deposited by the petitioner on 31.05.2004 (Rs.150/- less approximately). It is
prayed that in the said circumstances, since resumption is a last resort, the
impugned order be set aside.
8. During the course of arguments, a very fair stand has been taken
on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents and in view of the same and
on account of consensus, the present writ petition is disposed of with the
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-5087-2004 (O&M) [7]
following observations/directions:
(i) Since in pursuance of the order dated 01.04.2004, the petitioner has
paid the amount due alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum,
as was ordered and has shown his bona fide, thus, the impugned
orders dated 27.03.2003 and 07.11.2003 are set aside.
(ii) The primary dispute which remains is the rate of interest which is to
be applied, which aspect has arisen after the deposit made by the
petitioner in compliance to the order dated 01.04.2004. It would be
open to the respondent authorities to issue a notice within a period of
three weeks from today detailing the amount, if any, due from the
petitioner and the basis for charging the same along with relevant
provisions of law. In the said notice, due consideration would also be
given to the amount which has already been received by the
respondents from the petitioner.
(iii) Within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
notice, it would be open to the petitioner to file reply and dispute the
amount/rate of interest which as per the respondents is still
due/chargeable from the petitioner. In case no reply is filed by the
petitioner within the abovesaid period then the petitioner would be
liable to pay the said amount.
(iv) In case any such reply is filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid
period, then the Chief Administrator, HSVP (as we have been
informed that Housing Board Haryana has now merged with HSVP)
would decide the said issue after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner or his authorized representative within a period of three
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-5087-2004 (O&M) [8]
months from the date of submitting of the reply.
(v) In case the petitioner is satisfied with the order of the Chief
Administrator or no interim order is granted against the order of the
Chief Administrator on a challenge made by the petitioner, within
one month from the date of the order or challenge to the order of the
Chief Administrator is dismissed, then the petitioner would deposit
the amount as found due by the Chief Administrator within a period
of one month from the date of passing of the said order.
(vi) In case the said amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, it
would be open to the respondents to initiate proceedings, including
that of eviction, in accordance with law.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
(DIVYA SHARMA)
JUDGE
28.10.2026
Pawan
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.10.31 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document