DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. S N KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the aforesaid appeals have been preferred in this Court as against the order dated 24.4.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge allowing the appeal PPA No. 16/1991 filed by Shri Des Raj, one of the Respondents in the present case. As the issues raised in both the appeals are common, I propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment and order.

(2.) Shop No. 1181-A, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi, was auctioned by Delhi Development Authority. In the aforesaid auction conducted by Delhi Development Authority, Swaroop Singh was the highest bidder at Rs.l6,600. Said Swaroop Singh deposited 25% as per the terms and conditions being Rs.4,100.00 alongwith an amount of Rs.500.00 as earnest money. On 16.11.1970 a letter was sent to Swaroop Singh communicating confirmation of the bid and asking him to pay the balance amount of Rs.12,000.00 to be deposited by 16.12.1970. Later on by an order dated 30.1.1971 the name of Des Raj was included alongwith Swaroop Singh in respect of the aforesaid property. It is alleged by Des. Raj that it is at the behest of Swaroop Singh that his name came to be included alongwith Swaroop Singh pursuant to which Des Raj deposited the amount claimed by Delhi Development Authority. However, on the basis of the representation of Swaroop Singh inclusion of the name of Des Raj as against the aforesaid property was cancelled by Delhi Development Authority by letter dated 3.4.1978 and thereafter proceedings were initiated by Delhi Development Authority as against Des Raj under Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (hereinafter called the P.P. Act for short) seeking for his eviction from the aforesaid premises. A show cause notice was issued by the Estate Officer to said Shri Des Raj under Section 4(1) of the Act on 4.9.1982 asking him to show cause why an order of eviction in respect of the aforesaid premises should not be .passed for his unauthorised occupation. Des Raj contested the aforesaid proceedings. However, by order dated 28.12.1990 the Estate Officer held that Des Raj was an unauthorised occupant in the Public Premises and therefore, liable to be evicted. He accordingly, passed an order directing Des Raj and all other persons concerned to vacate the said land within 15 days failing which Des Raj and all other persons concerned would be liable to be evicted by use of such force as may be necessary.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order an appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge under Section 9 of the P.P. Act. The additional district Judge by his order dated 24.4.1992 allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Additional District Judge while allowing the appeal held that the matter could nol have been tried under the P.P. Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in AlR J986 SC 872. He further held that the spirit of promissory estoppel as well as the kind of the detriment determined in the case of M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P.. reported in AIR 1979 SC 621 would apply as Des Raj was allowed to continue on the promise made by Delhi Development Authority as well as by Swaroop Singh for about 9 years. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court the present two writ petitions have been preferred in this Court - one by Delhi Development Authority which is registered as C.W.P. No. 1282/1993 and the other writ petition by Shri Swaroop Singh which is registered as C.W.P.2967/1992.