JUDGMENT Vikram Aggarwal, J. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 17.06.2009 (Annexure P-14), 02.03.2010 (Annexure P-15), 10.04.2013 (Annexure P-17), 17.09.2014 (Annexure P-18) and 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-19). 2. The petitioner was working as a mechanic at a road side in Sector 28, Chandigarh. Pursuant to a scheme formulated by the respondent-Administration for allotting fixed sites to auto mechanics working unauthorizedly in the city of Chandigarh, a draw lots was conducted on 15.06.2001. Shop/booth No.49 measuring 8x30 square feet was leased out to the petitioner for 99 years vide letter of allotment dated 21.09.2001 (Annexure P-1). The total premium was Rs. 3,15,536/- and the yearly ground rent for the first 33 years was Rs. 7,888/-. 3. A sum of Rs. 48,884/- was paid by the petitioner as 25% of the premium, and for the balance 75% of the premium and the cost of the super structure, there were three options. As per Clause 5, the balance 75% could have been paid within a period of 30 days with no interest or in 03 annual equated installments along with interest @ 10% per annum or in 120 monthly equated installments along with interest @ 16.50% per annum. 4. As per the pleaded case of the petitioner, he chose the third option and started making payment of installments and paid 11 installments of Rs. 4,038/- each w.e.f. 26.11.2001 to 19.10.2002 (Annexures P-2 to P-12). 5. It is the case of the petitioner that business in the motor markets did not flourish as the mechanics had been uprooted from their respective places of working and their fixed clients did not find it suitable to get their vehicles repaired at the new sites. Under the circumstances, a representation was given to the respondent-Administration for deferring the payment of installments for one year. In pursuance of the same, notification dated 25.11.2003 (Annexure P-13) was issued vide which the payment of installments of premium was deferred by one year from the date of their falling due. 6. However, even thereafter, no income was generated as a result of which, on account of non-payment, the site in question was cancelled vide order dated 17.06.2009 (Annexure P-14) and at that time, a sum of Rs. 6,57,905/- was outstanding. 7. 6. However, even thereafter, no income was generated as a result of which, on account of non-payment, the site in question was cancelled vide order dated 17.06.2009 (Annexure P-14) and at that time, a sum of Rs. 6,57,905/- was outstanding. 7. An appeal was filed in which a period of 02 months was granted for paying the entire outstanding amount vide order dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure P- 15). Vide communication dated 10.05.2010 (Annexure P-16), a sum of Rs. 7,83,807/- was demanded from the petitioner, which the petitioner was not able to pay and could deposit only Rs. 1,00,000/-, which too was refunded, stating that the entire amount had to be paid in one go and not in installments. Under the circumstances, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P-17). An application was moved for recalling the said order which too was dismissed on 17.09.2014 (Annexure P-18). 8. Proceedings under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PP Act') were initiated and appeal filed against the order passed under the PP Act on 08.08.2014, was dismissed on 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-19) and in pursuance of the same, the site was sealed on 04.04.2017, leading to the filing of the instant writ petition. 9. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, the basic stand that has been taken is as to the default in payment despite repeated opportunities and the impugned orders have, therefore, been stated to be legal and valid. 10. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. 11. It was strenuously urged by learned counsel representing the petitioner that non-payment of the premium by the petitioner was on account of reasons beyond his control and that by taking the said fact into consideration, a Co-ordinate Bench while issuing notice of motion on 01.05.2017, had accepted the contention of the petitioner that he would deposit a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- immediately and that the balance amount would be deposited in installments of Rs. 10,000/- per month or Rs. 20,000/- quarterly. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- in pursuance of the said order but since the interest and penalty meter was running, he could not deposit the balance amount of Rs. 8,42,368/- which was due in the year 2018. 10,000/- per month or Rs. 20,000/- quarterly. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- in pursuance of the said order but since the interest and penalty meter was running, he could not deposit the balance amount of Rs. 8,42,368/- which was due in the year 2018. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is still willing to deposit the outstanding amount in installments. 12. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent- Administration vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is a rank defaulter and even after the allotment having been made as far back as in the year 2001 and repeated opportunities having been granted, he is still in default and, therefore, does not deserve to be granted any further opportunity. 13. We have duly considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 14. As has been noticed previously, the booth in question was allotted vide allotment letter dated 21.09.2001. Admittedly, the petitioner remained in default as a result of which the lease was cancelled vide order dated 17.06.2009 (Annexure P-14). The order specifically mentions that the lessee/allottee had failed to pay the amount of installments, ground rent and interest. This order was passed after issuing various notices calling upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount and at the time of cancellation of the lease, a sum of Rs. 6,57,905/- was outstanding. An appeal was preferred against the said order and in a very fair manner vide order dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure P-15), 02 months was granted to the petitioner to deposit the entire amount. However, the same was also not done despite a demand of Rs. 7,83,807/- having been raised vide notice dated 10.05.2010 (Annexure P-16). 15. Not satisfied, the petitioner preferred a revision petition against the appellate order dated 02.03.2010. But even before the Revisional Authority, the petitioner expressed his inability to pay the outstanding amount leading to the dismissal of the same. The petitioner once again preferred an application for recalling the said order passed in revision but the same was rightly dismissed on 17.09.2014 (Annexure P-18), holding that a review petition was not maintainable under the provisions of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. 16. The petitioner once again preferred an application for recalling the said order passed in revision but the same was rightly dismissed on 17.09.2014 (Annexure P-18), holding that a review petition was not maintainable under the provisions of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. 16. Since the petitioner was in default and was not paying the outstanding amount, proceedings under the PP Act were initiated and eviction order dated 08.08.2014 was passed. An appeal was preferred against the said order which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-19). It has also come on record that subsequently the site was sealed. When the petitioner approached this Court, a Co-ordinate Bench, while issuing notice of motion, passed the following order on 01.05.2017:- "In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner in his affidavit dated 24.04.2017 to the effect that he is willing to pay a sum of Rs. 7.00 lacs immediately and the balance amount in installments of Rs. 10,000/- per month or Rs. 20,000/- quarterly, let notice of motion be issued to the respondents for 08.05.2017. Process dasti only." 17. Thereafter on 06.08.2018, the following order was passed by the Coordinate Bench:- "Learned senior standing counsel for U.T. Chandigarh states that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 10.00 lacs and balance amount is Rs. 8,42,368/-. The petitioner is willing to pay the balance amount in installments alongwith interest as may be chargeable under the Rules. The offer appears to be fair and genuine. Let learned senior standing counsel for UT have instructions in this regard. The petitioner shall further deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the last week of August, 2018. List on 29.11.2018." 18. In terms of the affidavit dated 22.08.2022 of the Assistant Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh, it emerges that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- and had expressed his willingness to pay the balance amount in installments. However, even thereafter, the amount had not been deposited. It is, therefore, clear that despite having been granted a number of opportunities, the petitioner did not deposit the Government dues. 23 years have gone by since the allotment of the site in question but the dues have not been paid despite indulgence having been granted by the Authorities at different stages and even by this Court at the time of issuance of notice of motion and subsequently as well. 23 years have gone by since the allotment of the site in question but the dues have not been paid despite indulgence having been granted by the Authorities at different stages and even by this Court at the time of issuance of notice of motion and subsequently as well. However, the petitioner remains in default. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner is a rank defaulter and not interested in clearing the outstanding amount. In our considered opinion, no further indulgence deserves to be granted to the petitioner. 19. No doubt, it is well settled that resumption should normally be a weapon of last resort. It has so been held in a number of judgments viz M/s Teri Oat Estates (Private) Limited v. U.T., Chandigarh, 2004(1) HRR 659 SC and Dheera Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh Administration, LAWS(P&H)-2012-11-35, decided on 08.11.2012. However, where the allottee is a chronic and a rank defaulter and the default is willful, which in the present case is, there would be no hesitation in invoking the said provisions. As has been noticed above, the petitioner defaulted in payment of the outstanding amount right from 2003. He, therefore, does not deserve to be treated in any other manner. In view of the facts and circumstances aforementioned, we find the writ petition to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.