THAKUR KULDEEP SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been passed over on three occasions on the request of the appellants. It is not possible to give a fourth pass-over. On the first pass over it was said that counsel was just coming. On the second pass over it was said that the counsel was supposed to be held in a ,,traffic jam. On the third pass over it was prayed that the matter be posted after lunch. I am thus not inclined to give further indulgence in this appeal which is pending for over 31 years. The matter was partly argued on 10.8.2011, and on which date, parties were asked to file written synopsis. Both the parties have filed written synopsis along with the judgments. I may also note that when this case first came up on 20.7.2011, an adjournment was granted at the request of the appellants, making it clear that the matter would be argued on 10.8.2011. On 10.8.2011 again there was a request for adjournment however, only after the request for adjournment was declined, the matter was argued in part. I have therefore perused the written synopsis and the judgments and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal. There is the limited issue of the prayer for enhancement in the rate of rent alongwith grant of interest inasmuch as the compensation which was determined by the Award has since already been paid to the appellants.

(2.) THIS first appeal under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (in short ,,the Act) impugns the Award dated 29.2.1980 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Arbitrator whereby the appellants/owners were granted the following reliefs:-

(3.) I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned Award of the Arbitrator to interfere in appeal. Some amount of legitimate guess work has always to take place with respect to determining the rate of rent by comparing rents of equivalent premises. In this case the best evidence with respect to adjoining premises was available and taking into consideration the ages/condition of the respective premises, their covered area, the number of rooms and so on, the Arbitrator arrived at a plausible figure of rent. A higher figure of rent was arrived at for the subject premises after considering its number of rooms when as compared to the adjoining premises 875-A. It is also a fact which has emerged on record that the disputed premises were really in a run-down condition and therefore were in fact demolished within 7 years of the requisitioning. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Arbitrator which has awarded rent at Rs.4200/-pm. I also do not find error in granting rent Rs.200/- per month for vacant land till the time requisitioning order was withdrawn. As a Court of appeal with regard to findings of fact and also law I would reach the same conclusion which the Arbitrator has arrived at.