RAVINDER GOYAL Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner, a tenant of premises No. H -9, South Extension, Part -I, New Delhi, praying inter alia for setting aside the vacation notice dated 15.11.2011 issued by the respondent/MCD under Sec. 349 of the DMC Act, as also for directions to the respondent/MCD to regularize the subject premises in terms of the application for regularization pending at the end of the respondent/MCD.

(2.) Counsel for the respondent/MCD, who appears on advance copy, states at the outset that the relief sought in the present petition qua disposal of the application for regularization is not maintainable inasmuch as the said issue has been already been agitated by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD. She draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD on the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the vacation notice dated 15.11.2011, which is the subject matter of the present petition (Annexure P -17). Besides the above, in the appeal, the petitioner had also sought directions to the respondent/MCD to dispose of his pending application for regularization of the subject premises. Pertinently, the owners of the subject premises were not impleaded in the aforesaid appeal. Vide order dated 18.11.2011, the Appellate Tribunal, MCD held that against a vacation notice, an appeal was not maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and the same was liable to be dismissed. As regards the other relief for disposal of the pending application for regularization, directions were issued by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD to the MCD to inform the petitioner within three days as to the amount required to be deposited by him as compounding fee, if the regularization application was still pending with it. With the aforesaid order, the appeal was disposed of. It is stated by the counsel for the respondent/MCD that in view of the aforesaid order, an identical relief with regard to the pending regularization application could not have been sought by the petitioner in a second round of litigation initiated within three days from the date of passing of the aforesaid order by the ATMCD.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent/MCD further states that apart from the aforesaid directions issued by the ATMCD, the relief sought by the petitioner regarding the disposal of the regularization application would not be maintainable inasmuch as the said application has not been filed by the petitioner, who is a tenant in the premises, but by the owners of the premises, who have not been impleaded in the present petition as well.