ASHIT KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE SHRI BIMAL PRASAD JAIN Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON AND ESTATE OFFICER, NDMC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 3rd March, 2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1239/2010 dismissing the writ petition of the Appellant against the order dated 24th February, 2010 of the District Judge disposing of the appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short 'PP Act'). Vide order dated 24th February, 2010 the District Judge upheld the order dated 13th May, 2004 passed by the Estate Officer directing the Appellant to vacate the premises, that is, Shop No. 27, Yashwant Place Market, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, however, remanded the matter back to the Estate Officer to decide the actual license fee/damages to be paid by the Appellant as per law. In the writ petition, the Appellant also sought a mandamus against the Respondent No. 1 to renew the license for the said premises.

(2.) The abovementioned premises was allotted to one Shri Ranjit Batla under a License Deed dated 25th June, 1976 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,052/-for a fixed period of five years. The License Deed in terms of Clause (1) was renewable on the terms and conditions to be settled mutually between the parties. According to the Appellant a partnership was entered into on 20th December, 1976 between the Appellant, his brothers and Shri Ranjit Batla and the same was dissolved on 31st March, 1977. The Appellant duly submitted the relevant documents to the Respondent No. 1 along with an application for regularization of the shop and for execution of the license deed in the name of the Appellant. However, as the same was never decided, the Appellant continued running the business from the premises uninterruptedly. According to him he continued paying the license fee which at present is @ Rs. 2,264/-with effect from January, 2005. According to the Appellant, it is a case where the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) should regularize the license deed in the name of the Appellant and he is not entitled to be vacated from the premises.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The license deed was in favour of Shri Ranjit Batla and that too for a period of five years, which term expired on 25th June, 1981. It is not disputed that after the efflux of five years, that is, 25th June, 1981 no fresh license deed has been executed in favour of the Appellant. The Appellant had entered into a partnership agreement with the original licensee Shri Ranjit Batla on 20th December, 1976 and the said partnership was dissolved on 31st March, 1977 whereby all rights were given up by Shri Ranjit Batla and the Appellant was vested with the rights to carry out the business from the said premises. Before the Estate Officer no evidence was led of the business this partnership carried on between 20th December, 1976 and 31st March, 1977. As per Clause (8) of the license deed there was a complete restriction on the licencee to transfer the possession of the premises without the previous consent in writing of Respondent No. 1 and in default thereof was liable for ejectment. Thus, the Appellant acted in clear violation of the License Deed. When the Appellant prayed for regularization of subletting on payment of compounded charges vide letters dated 19th May, 1982, he was informed by Respondent No. 1 to complete certain formalities and that failing the same, proceedings under "PP Act" would be initiated. The Appellant neither fulfilled the formalities nor challenged this order dated 19th May, 1982 of the Respondent No. 1.