ARUN KUMAR JAIN Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Violation of terms and conditions of the Lease Deed executed by the petitioners on 27th January, 1994 in respect of Plot No. 81, Pocket A-2, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi, allotted to Petitioner A.K. Jain vide letter of 1st July, 1984 under the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 alleged was that both the petitioners who had married on 27th November, 1985, had at the time of execution of the Lease Deed in question, furnished false affidavits to the effect that neither of them were owning any other property. Whereas, the second petitioner was allotted Plot No. 223, Pocket G-29, Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi, under the aforesaid Scheme on 29th December, 1983 and lease in respect thereof, was executed on 5th May, 1998. Relevantly, at the time of execution of the aforesaid Lease Deed of 5th May, 1998 the second petitioner was already married to the first petitioner but she had submitted an Affidavit to the effect that the lease be executed in her single name i.e., her maiden name Shama Rani, as it will help her to take loan from her employer and as ladies are entitled to hold property in their names.

(2.) Pertinently, in the year 1994, when the Lease Deed in respect of plot No. 81, Pocket A-2, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the premises in question), was executed in the joint name of both the petitioners, they had furnished their respective Affidavits to the effect that neither of them nor their children own any other property except the premises in question.

(3.) According to the respondent, aforesaid Affidavits of the petitioners furnished at the time of execution of the Lease Deed in respect of the premises in question were not only false, but were misleading as the second petitioner instead of disclosing her true name i.e., Shama Rani, had disclosed her name as Seema Jain in her aforesaid affidavit. This was noticed in the year 2003, when the petitioners had applied for conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights in respect of the premises in question. A show cause notice of 9th June, 2004 was served upon the petitioners by the respondent and thereafter, upon finding that the afore-noted information furnished in the Affidavits by the petitioners was false and in violation of the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed, respondent vide order of 25th October, 2004 (Annexure P-3/A) had cancelled the Lease Deed in respect of the premises in question. Since petitioners had failed to surrender the possession of the premises in question, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated against them which resulted in passing of the eviction order of 18th July, 2007 (Annexure P-4) by the Estate Officer. Statutory appeal preferred by the petitioners against the Eviction Order (Annexure P-4) stands dismissed vide impugned order of 25th October, 2010.