SUSHILA VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these batch of writ petition are allottees of shops, where either the licence has expired or has been terminated. Proceedings were initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Eviction orders were passed and the petitioners had preferred appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, which were dismissed. The petitioners have challenged by these writ petitions, the orders of eviction, and the dismissal of their appeals preferred against the orders of eviction. Most of the petitioners are either Ex Army personnel or their widows or legal representatives, who were allotted shops on licence basis. Before dealing with the common grounds of challenge, the facts of the individual cases as well as submissions relating to the individual cases may be noted.

(2.) (1). CW NO.1385/2000 Petitioner's husband, Ex Subedar, Mr.P.D.Verma, had retired from the Indian Army. He was allotted Shop No.8, Arjun Vihar Shopping Complex, Delhi @ Rs.482/-p.m. The petitioner's husband, it is stated, was carrying on his business in conformity with the terms and conditions of the allotment. Petitioner's husband is stated to have expired on 1.11.1996. Petitioner sought regularization in her name as per the terms of licence deed of the shop and offered to pay all necessary charges. It is claimed that the respondent No.2 was pleased to issue an allotment letter dated 1.9.1998. A licence deed at the enhanced fee of Rs.600/- p.m. and security of Rs.11,000/- with allotment for period of 2 years was prepared. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 5.12.1998, held the petitioner to be unauthorized occupant and directed that order under Section 5(1) of the Act for vacation of the premises be served on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on 27.1.2000. The respondent's case is that the licence deed in favour of petitioner's husband expired on 12.8.1996. Respondents did not agree to the regularisation of the shop in favour of the petitioner. Proceedings before the Estate Officer were initiated vide case No.37/97 and an order was passed on 5.12.1998, declaring the petitioner as an unauthorized occupant. The appeal of the petitioner before the Additional District Judge as noticed was dismissed on 21.1.2000 giving time to the petitioner to vacate the premises upto 30.9.2000. The respondents admit that an option to the petitioner to extend the licence was given vide letter dated 1.9.1998. The petitioner did not meet the requirements for deposit and other charges. Hence no extension of the licence came into force. It may also be noticed that the petitioner had preferred a suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed on 27.1.1997 recording the respondents" undertaking that petitioner would not be evicted without due process of law. Petitioner was accordingly issued a notice under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner has assailed the order of the Additional District Judge submitting that she was an unfortunate widow of late Ex serviceman, who had been allotted the shop as a measure of rehabilitation. The purpose was that the retired army personnel, his legal representatives and family members were able to maintain themselves. Petitioner had been duly paying the licence fee upto 31.1.2000. Petitioner could not be treated as an unauthorized occupant. It is claimed that the petitioner had accepted the allotment offered vide letter dated 1.9.1998, for a period of 2 years and had been paying the enhanced licence fee. It was also claimed that though the nomenclature was a licence deed, it was in fact and in substance a lease deed. Petitioner also complained of discrimination as certain other shops had been allotted to the widows of Ex serviceman. It was urged that the whole object of rehabilitation would be defeated, if the petitioner was to be thrown out. It was also urged that the order of eviction had been passed, because the petitioner could not pay the increased amount of rebate demanded. Petitioner urges that the question arising for consideration is whether the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant of the shop or not and whether she could have succeeded to her late husband as a licensee? Plea of discrimination was also sought to be raised as licenses had been allegedly renewed in favour of some legal representatives of some allottees. It was urged that the notice for eviction had given the ground of additional space being required for primary school, while eviction had proceeded on the ground of expiry of petitioner's ex husband, prior to his death. The ground given in the notice was different from the one actually accepted. (2)(ii) CW No. 3821/1999 Petitioner had approached the respondents for allotment of a shop in the Cantonment area in the year 1977. Petitioner was allotted Shop No.T-4/5, Pratap Chowk Shopping Complex. Petitioner has been paying the licence fee and carrying on his business. The licence deed was renewed from 12.8.1994 for a period of 2 years. Petitioner claims to have paid the licence fee upto 31.3.1999. Licence deed dated 12.8.1994 provided for payment of Rs.300/-p.m. as rebate charges to the Department. Petitioner claims respondent started harassing the petitioner to pressurize her for increase in the rent/licence fee as also the other charges. Petitioner was constrained to file a suit for injunction. An ad interim injunction was not granted by the Civil Judge, the petitioner, therefore, filed a civil revision petition. Respondents were restrained from evicting the petitioner without the due process of law. As the respondent attempted to close the access to the petitioner's shop, a writ petition was also filed. The possession of the shop was sought to be taken on the ground that the same was for extension of the Delhi area Primary School. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, pursuant to which on 29.5.1999, an order of eviction was passed. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of eviction. Dispossession was stayed in appeal. The Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28.6.1999, which is sought to be assailed in this petition. The authority of the officer issuing the notice under Section 4 of the Act is questioned in the instant case by learned counsel Mr.C.M.Khanna, claiming that only a person with the rank of Brigadier could act as Estate Officer and the present incumbent was a Colonel. There is nothing placed on record to support the plea raised. The objection is therefore, rejected. It is claimed that the allotment amounted to a lease and not licence, as the purpose was rehabilitation of the petitioner, who was an ex serviceman on permanent basis. The real reason for termination was the arbitrary increase in rebate, which the petitioner could not pay. 2.( iii) CW No.3823/1999 Petitioner had retired from Indian Army in 1983. The allotment had been made to the petitioner initially for a period of 2 years from 30.12.1987. A fresh agreement dated 12.8.1991, was arrived at. Thereafter the petitioner did not grant fresh renewal, though they were receiving rent and other charges. Petitioner claims to be in lawful possession without having committed any breach. Petitioner claims that as respondents were threatening to dispossess the shopkeepers, their association after making a representation filed a suit for injunction. No stay was granted in the suit or in the appeal and therefore the Association preferred a Civil Revision Petition, where respondents were restrained from dispossessing the petitioner and others. The respondents took the law into their own hands and possession of one of the quarters was taken, which led to the filing of a contempt petition. Respondents sought possession of the shop in question on the ground that it was required for the extension of Delhi area Primary School. The area, where the shop was located was commercial area and could not be used for a school. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to vacate the shop. Eviction order was passed on 29.5.1999, Appeal was preferred under Section 9. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. 2.(IV) CW.3822/1999 Petitioners case is that he was allotted a shop bearing No.T.4/3, Pratap Chowk Shopping Complex, Delhi, being an ex serviceman. The licence was renewed from time to time and a fresh licence deed was entered into between the parties. The respondents accepted the licence fee/rent upto 27.11.1998 and the petitioner continued in lawful possession. Respondents started harassing the petitioner to pressurize the petitioner either to increase the rent or vacate the shop. The Association filed a suit for injunction. Interim stay was not granted in the suit and the appeal. Hence the Revision Petition was filed, wherein dispossession was stayed. Respondents closed the main gate illegally. Writ petition had to be filed to get the main gate opened. Forcible possession of one of the quarters was also taken. Respondents were harbouring ill will and issued a letter claiming that the shop in question was required for extension of the Delhi area Primary School. Subsequently, they sought possession of the shop on the ground that it was unsafe and it was required for extensive repairs. A show cause notice to vacate the shop was given. Petitioner questions the competence and jurisdiction of the Officer issuing the notice. An order dated 29.5.1999 determining the petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant and directing service of the order for vacating premises U/s 5(1) of the Act was passed on 29.5.1999. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order, which was dismissed in limine by the Additional District Judge, vide orders dated 28.6.1999. 2 (v) CWP No.3824/1999 Husband of the petitioner was allotted shop No.T-4/8, Pratap Chowk Shopping Complex, Delhi Cantt. Allotment had been made to the petitioner initially for a period of 2 years from 1.4.1980. Petitioner claims that another lease deed was executed between the husband of the petitioner and the President of India for the said shop. The petitioner's husband died in September, 1997. Petitioner as legal representative and widow, has been carrying on the business in the shop. The petitioner claims to have paid the charges to the respondents upto 16.10.1999. A show cause notice was issued which was replied on 17.6.1999. An order of eviction was passed. Petitioner claims that he did not commit breach of any term and condition of the licence. Respondents have acted contrary to the guidelines of the Government of India in initiating eviction proceedings. Reference is then made to the legal proceedings instituted by the shopkeeper's association. It is claimed that respondents as a result of the ill will issued a notice claiming that the shop in question was required for the extension of Delhi area Primary School. Petitioner pointed out that the same could not be used for the said purpose. The respondents took the position that premises had become unsafe and were required for extensive repairs. A show cause notice was issued, pursuant to which eviction order was passed. An appeal was preferred before the Additional District Judge. The same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 28.6.1999.

(3.) The respondents have produced on record a chart showing the dates, on which the agreements came into existence and when the last renewed licence deed expired in each of the cases. The dates on which the notices were issued are given as also the date of the order of eviction and the date of the order passed by the Additional District Judge. It is seen that rate of rebate was also sought to be increased from Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- w.e.f. April, 1997 in all the cases except that of Smt.Sushila Verma, where rate of rebate was @ Rs.400/- p.m. and was enhanced to Rs.600/- p.m. Respondents during the course of proceedings had indicated the outstanding amounts of the licence deeds as also the other amounts due. Petitioners were directed to clear the arrears of licence fee as well as that of rebate since there was no stay of recovery granted by the competent Court. This has been done.