HIRA SINGH Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the decision of the respondents in not recognising the petitioner as a successor to late Sh. J.S. Sekhon, who was the lessee of the plot in question and treating the petitioner as an illegal occupant. Further, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from unlawfully dispossessing and evicting the petitioner without following the due procedure of law.

(2.) As regards the second relief is concerned, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that for the eviction of the petitioner, respondent shall take action in accordance with the due process of law only. As regards the first prayer, I have heard Counsel for both the parties at length. Mr. Shali has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is seeking adjudication and assertion of contractual rights through a writ petition. He relies on the judgment of this Court in Mangat Ram v. DDA, ILR 1984 Vol. I, 817 in support of his contention that the Forum of writ jurisdiction cannot be utilised for determination of contractual rights.

(3.) The present factory shed was allotted on 7.1.1982 to Sh. J.S. Sekhon. Sh. J.S. Sekhon is stated to have expired on 22.7.1991. Petitioner is seeking to assert his rights in respect of the shed on the basis of a partnership deed dated 20.5.1991 with Shri J.S. Sekhon. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that this is a case where the petitioner staked his claim based on the partnership as late as 5.5.1999, when he sent intimation of the alleged partnership. Dr. Ghosh, Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand refutes this and submits that partnership deed was notified to the respondents on 6.2.1995. Be it may, one fact is clear that the intimation was not sent immediately after the alleged partnership deed was entered into. Not only this, Mr. Shali has pointed out that all the documents submitted are photocopies and no original has been furnished. It is also submitted by him that one Geeta Rani is claimed to be a partner of late Sh. J.S. Sekhon on the basis of an alleged partnership deed executed at a point of time earlier than the partnership dated 20.5.1991, which has been put forward by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured to submit before me that there is no real controversy with regard to the petitioner's right flowing from Sh. J.S. Sekhon. He submits that there was a dacoity and trespass committed by the husband of Geeta Rani. Moreover, as regards the partnership deed is concerned, he submits that the original was lost and he filed an FIR. Learned Counsel further submits that petitioner has been in functional occupation and has contributed to the Industrial Growth by carrying out the works. He submits that as per the policy of the respondent, petitioner ought to be recognised on the basis of functional occupation alone. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the policy on which the petitioner is placing reliance may be the policy of the DSIDC with regard to its entrepreneurs and not that of the respondent Department of Industries, which is applicable in the present case. As per the terms of the lease deed executed with late Sh. J.S. Sekhon, sub-letting or assignment or parting with possession of premises without previous consent in writing was not permissible. The questions regarding he authenticity and genuineness of the partnership deed set by the petitioner resultantly the locus of the petitioner and the rival claim of Geeta Rani and several others are disputed questions requiring trial.