DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. ENGINEERING ANCILLARY CO OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation had constructed some industrial sheds in different parts of the city between 1970 and 1974. On 19th July, 1974 the respondent was allotted Shed Nos. 92 and 93 of New Okhla Industrial Complex, Phase-I at monthly rent of Rs. 1,460/- for both the sheds. The licence was for a period of three years whi ch expired in July, 1977. Admittedly this licence was not extended thereafter. It is a common case of the parties that the petitioner had come out with the Hire Purchase Scheme under which options were given to such licencees to purchase the sheds allotted to them on hire purchase basis. This option was extended to the respondent also. However, the respond ent did not opt for the scheme. The respondent also defaulted in making regular payment of licence fee. As the arrears of licence fee mounted and the term of licence had also expired, the petitioner treated the respondent as unauthorised occupant and moved an application under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') before the Estate Officer and these proceedings culminated in order dated 26th November, 1993 whereby the Estate Officer passed eviction order against the respondent and he was given 15 days time to vacate the public premises. Admittedly, the respondent did not challenge this order by filing any appeal before the Appellate Court under Section 9 of the Act. Since in the order dated 26th November, 1993 the Estate Officer had also assessed damages, the respondent thereafter started appearing before the Estate Officer, tendered in bits the amount of the damages assessed by the Estate Officer from time-to-time in instalments. For this purpose case was fixed before the Estate! Officer on various dates.

(2.) The matter of this nature was considered by this Court in the case of DSIDC v.Chander Prakash and Another, 1994(1) AD Delhi 377. It was held that the premises, as per the terms of lease deed, had been let out to different allottees and the same belong to the DSIDC Shed which had been constructed on the land was leased by the Government to it. This Court also clarified that the position in law is that if the premises are sold on Hire Purchase basis then the transfer takes place only after the instalments are paid. The Court also observed that once the allotment is validly determined the provisions of the Act could be invoked. As pointed out above, in the instant case the lease which was monthly lease came to an end by that time and the petitioner did not opt for taking the premises on Hire Purchase basis. The petitioner, therefore, became unauthorised occupant and thus initiating action for eviction under the provisions of the Act or for damages for continued unauthorised occupation of the petitioner in the said premises cannot be said to be illegal.

(3.) It may be of some relevance to point out that many writ petitions were filed in this Court challenging the terms of hire purchase promulgated by the petitioner, particularly the price which was fixed under the said scheme. These writ petitions were decided and the judgments given are reported as under: 1. DSIDC v. Chander Parkash and Another, 1994 (1) AD (Delhi) 377. 2. Delhi State Enterprises Association and Others v. DSIDC, 1994 III AD (Delhi) 1351. 3. Pushplata v. DSIDC, 61 (1996) DLT 818 (DB).