FARID QURESHI Vs. SATISH MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apart from petitioners being in arrears of license fee, bonafide necessity/space crunch in President's Estate, New Delhi, is the reason disclosed by the contesting respondent in the eviction petition but in the Notice under Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 issued by the Estate Officer, the reason to seek petitioners' eviction from the shops/residential premises allotted under License Agreements, is that the petitioners are in arrears of license fee and upon expiry of notice period, their possession upon Shop Nos. 2 to 7, and Quarter Nos. 75 to 80, in Block 13; Shop-cum-Quarter No. 96 to 98, G-Point; and Shop/Garage No. 12/4 and Quarter No. 12/6, in President's Estate Market, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the subject premises), is unauthorized. Eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioners in the year 2003, in pursuance to Notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 which culminated in passing of the Eviction Orders by the Estate Officer in the year 2005-2006, as it was found that the petitioners except petitioner-Farid Qureshi had no subsisting right to occupy the subject premises after the year 1991 and they were in arrears of the license fee and that respondent had required the subject premises for bonafide use and commercial use of the subject premises was a high security risk and was affecting the tranquility in the area. The possession of the petitioner-Farid Qureshi on his shop/residence in the subject premises was purportedly unauthorized after the year 1993.

(2.) The statutory appeal, preferred by the petitioners stands dismissed vide impugned order which is assailed by way of above captioned writ petitions, in which the grounds of challenge to the impugned order are common one and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of, by this common order.

(3.) It is beyond realm of controversy that after the year 1993, there was no subsisting right of the petitioners to remain in possession of the subject premises, as the last Agreement between the parties, to permit the petitioners to remain in the subject premises came to an end by efflux of time in the year 1993 itself. The impediment to further renewal of the License Agreements between the parties was the enhancement of the license fee which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners by way of W.P.(C) No. 2071/1992, titled as S.P. Goel vs. Union of India, which was disposed of on 17th April, 2000. During the interregnum, Petitioners had been paying the license fee under the interim orders of the Court.