S RAJDEV SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver the possession of flat No. G-2. Connaught Circus, New Delhi, presently in occupation of respondent No. 6. to them and also for quashing the proceedings pending before the Estate Officer, Shri B. Chakravarty, respondent No. 5, and the appeal pending before Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi, respondent No. 7.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the Flat No. G-2 (now Flat No. G-73), Connaught Circus, New Delhi consisting of four rooms, one kitchen, one bath-room, verandah and court-yard on the first floor, which are stated to belong to the petitioners, was requisitioned by the Collector in 1948 when it was in possession of Sangeet Bharati Authority. It was further requisitioned by the Government under the Requisitioning and Acquisilion of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act') vide order of the Deputy Commissioner /Collector dated 16th April, 1960 for carrying on the activities of Natya Ballet Centre (Bhartiya Natya Sangh). The possession thereof was ordered to be delivered to the said Cenire with effect from 9th April, 1960. Natya Ballet Centre also vacated the said. flat and it was allotted to Shri Vidya Dharam and then to Shri K. P. Khanna, Magistrate First Class. Due to his transfer from Delhi Admn., the said fiat was. then allotted to Shri P. P. Sharma, the then Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parliament Street, New Delhi vide allotment letter dated 11th June, 1972 (Annexure P-2 to the writ petition) as a licensee and licence fee, if any, was to be charged from him under the normal rules. It is further alleged that the physical possession of the said flat was taken over by the Requisitioning Authority (for short 'R. A.') from one Shri J. N. Sapru, who was at that time the tenant of the petitioner No. I, and as such, he should be deemed to be in constructive possession of the property and is entitled to be restored the possession at the time of de-requisitioning. The period for which the premises could be kept under requisition under the 1952 Act (as amended by Amendment Act No. 1 of 1970 w.e.f. 11-3-1970) expired and came to an end on 10th March, 1987. By the Amendment Act of 1985, the words "15 years" were substituted for "17 years" in Section 6 of the Act. This period accordingly expired on 10th March, 1987. Shri G. S. Chima, Collector of Delhi, vide order dated 6th March, 1987 de-requisitioned the said flat and ordered to hand over vacant possession to the landlord/lady after vacation by the present allottee, i.e. respondent No. 6. A copy of this order was sent to respondent No. 6 with a direction to hand over vacant possession of the flat to the office of the Collector immediately. The allottment of the residential accommodation in respect of the flat No. 2-G, Connaught Place, New Delhi in favour of Shri P. P. Sharma, respondent No. 6, was cancelled by the Asstt. Housing Commissioner (Public Witness D) vide letter No. F. 6/12/86- PWD dated 4th March, 1987 and he was provided alternative accommodation in Mayur Vihar vide order dated 4th March, 1987 (Annexure P-4 to the writ petition). Smt. Saraswati Sharma, wife of respondent No. 6, filed Suit No. 40187 against petitioner No. I for permanent injunction restraining him from dispossessing her and her family members from the flat in question. On the ground that she had been living in the flat which was allotted to her husband and that taking advantage of the alleged serious condition of her husband in the hospital, petitioner No. I tried to dispossess her and her family members from the said flat. Status quo granted vide order dated 11th March, 1987 was vacated vide order dated 25th March, 1987 (Annexure P-5 to the writ petition). Vide order dated 15th April, 1987, the Officer In-charge (Requisition) directed the S.H.O. Connaught Place to help the. bailiff to get the premises vacated from respondent No. 6 so that the same could bo restored to the landlord. On 3rd April, 1987 the wife of respondent No. 6, Smt, Saraswati Sharma, withdrew the suit No. 40/87 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the court. In spite of the dismissal of the suit, respondent No. 6 did not vacatc the premise. Thereafter it appears, instead of invoking the provisions of Section 6(2) of the 1952 Act for delivery of possession to the petitioners, the proceedings were initiated under Section 4(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'P P. Act') before the Estate Officer, Delhi. It appears that the Estate Officer passed an order on 26th October, 1987 under Section 9(2) of the P. P. Act against, which respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal before Shri S. M. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, respondent No. 7, who stayed the proceedings before the Estate Officer. The petitioners have been driven to go from piller to post but have not been able to get the possession of the fiat. in question and now they have filed the present writ petition on various grounds. The substance of the writ petition, however, is that under the 1952 Act. particularly Section 6 thereof, consequent on re-requisitioning of the flat, it becomes the duty of the Competent Authority to restore and hand over the posse sion of the flat to the petitioners and that respondent No. 6 was only a licensee in the premises which licence already stands cancelled and that he was allotted alternative accommodation in Mayur Vihar. Respondent No. 6 was allotted the flat in Connaught Circus as a member of Delhi Judicial Service and as a Registrar of this Court from which post he stands dismissed. Therefore, he has no right to continue in possession of the said flat. The proceedings before the Estate Officer and the Additional District Judge are wholly misconceived as once the property stands de-requisitioned. It is the Competent Authority under the Act who has to deliver the possession of the premises to the persons who are entitled to it under Section 6(2) of the: 1952 Act.

(3.) Shri Preeti Madan, Officer In-charge (Regn.) has filed a counter affidavit dated 8th August, 1988 on behalf of Delhi Adininistration wherein it has been admitted that the premises in dispute were requisitioned by the Collector in 1948 for public purpose, and thereafter the flat was further requisitioned by the Collector's order dated 16th April, 1960 which was thereafter vacated by Sangeet Bharati Authority, Natya Ballet Centre and afterward. it was allotted to different athorities. On de-requisitioning of the property the petitioners were entitled to get back the possession of the property but due to frivolous litigation enunciated by respondent No. 6. possession could not be restored back to the landlords. It has been denied that the proceedings before the Estate Officer were initiated by the respondent to harass the petitioners but those proceedings could not be helped because respondent No. 6 did not hand over the premises to the petitioners