BALLABH DASS AGGARWAL Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of property bearing No. 4, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. The main building was leased to the Ford Foundation in July, 1960, the petitioner keeping the rear annexe himself. The Ford Foundation initially took the premises on lease for 5 years with an option of renewal which was also exercised by them. Having learnt that the Ford Foundation would be vacating the property by the end of June, 1968, Shri Radha Ballabh Aggarwal, the general attorney of the petitioner (Shri Ballabh Dass Aggarwal) was looking out for a suitable tenant. It was proposed that the main building could be rented out to the India Tourism Development Corporation Limited, a Government of India Undertaking. A letter dated 15-6-1968 was written by the general attorney to the Corporation in this connection demanding a rent of Rs. 22,000.00 p.m. In reply the Corporation offered Rs. 20,000.00 p.m. By a further letter dt. 5th July, 1968 the general attorney expressed his consent to let-out the main building at Rs. 20,000.00 p.m. subject to a lease-deed being executed incorporating the conditions agreed upon. The Ford Foundation, however, did not vacate the premises by the 30th of June, 1968 as originally agreed, there having been some delay in the matter of moving to the new premises. The Ford Foundation, therefore, informed the petitioner that they would be vacating the premises on the 16th of August, 1968. The general attorney, who was then at Bombay, had come to Delhi for the purpose of executing a lease agreement with the India Tourism Development Corporation. The necessary stamp paper was purchased on the 18th July, 1968. A formal agreement of lease was executed on 20th July, 1968.

(2.) According to the Collector, Delhi (R2), he had issued a notice under section 2(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (30 of 1952), on 12-7-1968, informing the petitioner that the property was needed for a public purpose, namely, accommodating government Officers/Offices, for the purpose of Union, and that the petitioner may show cause within 15 days of the services of the notice why the property should not be so requisitioned. The owner was also informed that he should not dispose of or structurally alter the property or even let it to a tenant until the expiry of two months of the said notice.

(3.) This notice was served by affixture and the signature, in pencil, of a person residing in the back portion of the property, was obtained by the process server who affixed the said notice on the main building on 12-7-1968.