NEETA GHUMAN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned and judgment dated 16.9.2006 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 07.10.2002 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Neeta Ghumen seeking permanent injunction against the defendant/ Delhi Development Authority (DDA) restraining them from acting upon the notice dated 09.12.1983 holding her guilty for the misuse of the suit property had been dismissed.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff has purchased this property bearing No.82/13, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi from the President of India vide perpetual lease dated 23.12.1965; It compromised of a ground floor, first floor, mezzanine floor, second floor and a garage block. This property was admittedly located in a residential zone. Plaintiff had fulfilled all conditions to run a guest house. On 22.5.1981 she had applied for permission to run a guest house/boarding house/lodging house but no reply was received. On 08.3.1983 plaintiff received a notice stating that she was not entitled to carry on any trade or business in the said premises. Reply dated 15.3.1983 was sent by the plaintiff clarifying that the premises are being used for a family dwelling house and for no other purpose; the guests who use the same are paying guests; user was residential only. THEreafter on 29.12.1983 another notice was received by the plaintiff terminating the lease of her plot holding it to be in violation of the terms of the lease.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led. Trial judge was of the view that although the plaintiff had applied for a licence for running a guest house but the same had not been permitted; the notification Ex.PW-2/1 dated 7.5.1999 permitting user of guest house is permitted in certain areas only. Safdarjung Development Area where is the suit property is located is not one such area; it was not covered by this notification Ex.PW-2/1. The contention of the plaintiff that the premises are being used for residence and no food is being served is an afterthought story which has been cooked up by the plaintiff. This has been noted in the para 11 of the judgment of the trial judge. Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.