ALLIED FRUITS AND FLORISTS PVT. LTD Vs. NDMC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim that the petitioner no.2 Sh. Panna Lal has been carrying on business of sale of fruits and vegetables from Shop No.58-B, Khan Market, New Delhi since 1960s; that the shop was acquired by Ms. Neelam Chopra (not impleaded as a respondent by the petitioners but impleaded as respondent no.2 vide order dated 17th January, 2008) in the year 1969 and the petitioner no.2 being already a sitting tenant under an oral tenancy became a tenant under the respondent no.2 and continued to pay the rent to the respondent no.2; that over the period of time the rent was increased to '2,000/- per month and the respondent no.2 also used to take away vegetables and grocery items free of charge from the said shop. The petitioners further claim that earlier the petitioner no.2 was carrying on business from the said shop in the name and style of M/s Allied Fruits & Florists but when the children of the petitioner no.2 joined the business, the petitioner no.1 company was incorporated in which the petitioner and his children only are share holders and directors. The petitioners claim that the respondent no.2 to coerce the petitioners into vacating the shop started lodging complaints against the petitioners and with the same design also complained to the respondent no.1 NDMC of the petitioners carrying on business in the said shop without license. It is the case of the petitioners that considering the nature of the business being run in the said shop, the petitioners do not require any license from the respondent no.1 NDMC but by way of abundant caution applied for a license. The respondent no.1 NDMC asked the petitioners to produce a No Objection Certificate. (NOC) from the landlord. The petitioners claim that owing to the disputes with the landlord i.e. respondent no.2, it is not possible for them to obtain the NOC from the respondent no.2. The respondent no.1 NDMC accordingly vide order dated 2nd January, 2008 impugned in the present writ petition rejected the application of the petitioners for health license owing to the objection by the respondent no.2 landlord. The present writ petition has been filed seeking declaration that considering the business and activities of the petitioners of sale of fresh fruits and vegetables and other branded grocery items from the shop of the petitioners, there is no requirement for the petitioners to obtain any license under Section 327/331 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 and alternatively claiming direction to the respondent no.1 NDMC to grant license to the petitioners without insisting upon the NOC from the respondent no.2.

(2.) Notice of the writ petition was issued and vide interim order dated 17th January, 2008 the operation of the order dated 2nd January, 2008 stayed.

(3.) The respondent no.2 has filed a counter affidavit denying that the petitioner no.2 was a tenant in the shop or had been paying any rent. It is stated that the respondent no.2 after purchase of the shop in the year 1969 started a business of sale of fresh fruits and vegetables therefrom in the name and style of M/s Allied Fruit Mart and is the sole proprietor thereof and the petitioner no.2 was employed as a Manager incharge of the said shop. The respondent no.2 along with her counter affidavit has filed the affidavits submitted by the petitioner no.2 in the year 1970 and in the year 2001 as employee/Manager of the shop and admitting the respondent no.2 as the proprietor of the business, for the purposes of enhancement of electricity load and obtaining the Sales Tax registration. It is further pleaded that the respondent no.2 vide notice dated 25th June, 2007 terminated the services of the petitioner no.2 and the petitioners are illegal trespassers in the shop. The counsel for the respondent no.2 has argued that the petitioners having concealed the documents admittedly signed by the petitioner no.2 (and signatures whereon are accepted in the rejoinder) admitting the respondent no.2 to be the proprietor of the business of M/s Allied Fruit Mart and employment of the petitioner no.2, are not entitled to any relief on this ground alone.