VIJAY KUMAR RAJPUT Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present proceedings is an illustration of how the very provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the Act) are defeated by filing various proceedings and prevent the natural conclusion of the proceedings initiated under the special Act. The petitioner is a licensee of shop No. 243 in Palika Bazar and proceedings were initiated in 1985 against the petitioner under Section 7(1) of the Act for recovery of licence fee and interest. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte and the matter was fixed for evidence of respondent Council herein. The petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondent Council in which certain interim orders were passed.

(2.) The said interim orders have not been annexed to the present writ petition but from perusal of the order of the Estate Officer dated 5.9.2002 it can be deciphered that interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioner directing stay of dispossession and recovery of arrears over and above the reserved rate. This order is stated to have been passed on 28.5.1985. On this order being passed an application was filed by the respondent Council before the Estate Officer that in view proceedings pending before the Civil Court and the interim orders passed, the proceedings under the Act be adjourned sine die. It is unfortunate that it took 13 years for the interim orders granted in favour of the petitioner to be vacated and for the disposal of the application. On the interim orders being vacated, an application was filed by the respondent Council in December 1998 informing the Estate Officer about the same and requesting for reopening of the proceedings. Consequently the proceedings reopened and notices were issued to the petitioner. The respondent Council also moved an application for amendment to include the claim for recovery during the period of time the matter had been adjourned sine die and the interim application pending consideration before the competent Court. This application was vehemently opposed by the petitioner herein but was allowed vide order dated 5.9.2002 of the Estate officer. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same under Section 9 of the Act and in terms of the order dated 3.2.2003 of the learned District Judge the said appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition impugning the said order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amendment cannot take away the rights accrued to a party by lapse of time and the time-barred claim should not be included by the amendment. Learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kslgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others, AIR 1957 S.C. 363. Learned Counsel further submits that in matters of limitation even if to some extent arbitrariness may lead to hardship, equitable considerations are immaterial and irrelevant in applying the same and strict grammatical meaning of the words used should be given effect to. Learned Counsel has referred in this behalf the judgment of the Supreme Court in Siraj-ul-Haq Khan and Others v. The Sunni Central Board of Wazf U.P. And Others, AIR 1959 Supreme Court 198.