VIJAY KUMAR Vs. NDMC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15.11.07 passed by the learned Estate Officer and order dated 29.7.2009 passed by the learned District Judge-IV.

(2.) Brief facts as per the petitioner and relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was allotted a shop bearing No. UG-40, Pallika Place, R.K Ashram Marg, New Delhi by the respondent on 9.9.92 for a period of five years on the basis of a Deed of Licence. That on the expiry of the said five years, the respondent called upon the petitioner vide letter dated 15.10.98 for renewal of the licence subject to completion of all the formalities. Due to the fact that the petitioner failed to pay the amount due towards rent and hence was in huge arrears, proceedings were initiated against him by the respondent before the learned Estate Officer under Section 5 & 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971 whereby vide order dated 15.11.07 an eviction order was passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the PP Act before the District Judge which vide judgment dated 29.7.2009 upheld the order of the Estate Officer. Feeling aggrieved with the abovesaid two orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner be given another opportunity to represent his case before the Estate Officer. Counsel further submits that the petitioner in fact had appeared and made some payment during the pendency of the proceedings before the Estate Officer but still the Estate Officer proceeded in the matter to pass an eviction order against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that under the one time policy of 1997 the petitioner had applied for the regularization of his licence in respect of the shop in question but the said request of the petitioner has yet not been considered by the respondent. Counsel also submits that the said policy is still in force and has not been superseded by any subsequent policy of the respondent. Counsel also submits that in similar cases, the respondent has already condoned the breaches committed by the licensees but the petitioner is being discriminated against. Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to some of the cases referred by the petitioner in his rejoinder. In support of her argument, counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondent being an instrumentality of the State cannot adopt the pick and choose policy. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already made almost the entire payment towards rent/damages till the month of May, 2010 and therefore on having received the said payment the license of the petitioner can be renewed by the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent has not disclosed any basis for charging the exorbitant rate of interest and the penalty on the alleged over due amount.