TRILOKI NATH DHIR Vs. N D M C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the eviction order dated 2nd November, 2007 passed by the Estate Officer and the order dated 24th December, 2009 passed by the learned District Judge upholding the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer .

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that a licence deed in respect of the property bearing Shop No.31 South Market, Kidwai Nagar East, New Delhi was executed in favour of the petitioner by the respondents w.e.f 19.6.1997. A show cause notice dated 26.12.2006 was served by the Estate Officer on the petitioner on the ground that some additions and alterations were undertaken by the petitioner without the permission of the respondents and consequently an eviction order dated 2.11.2007 was passed by the Estate Officer. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the ADJ which vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2009 was dismissed. Hence, feeling aggrieved with the above said two orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Mr. V.K. Malik, counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner had removed all the violations complained of by the respondents in their show cause notice dated 26.12.2006 and after the removal of the said breaches, the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer cannot sustain. Counsel further submits that the respondents have acted malafidely and discriminately against the petitioner although similar violations have been committed by other shopkeepers by erecting mezzanine floor and basement, etc. Counsel further submits that the alleged violations carried out by the petitioner were temporary in nature and the same were immediately removed by the petitioner, therefore, with the removal of the said breaches the respondents in fact should have withdrawn the show cause notice dt. 26.12.2006. Counsel further submits that in fact the petitioner had made a representation dated 30th November, 2007 to the respondents but the said representation of the petitioner has not yet been decided. Counsel also submits that pursuant to the said eviction order, the respondent has taken over the possession of the said property from the petitioner. Counsel also submits that the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the Estate Officer as no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case.