PRADEEP KUMAR KHANNA Vs. N.D.M.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking a direction to quash the demand raised by respondent no.2 in the Notice dated 27.8.1996 in the sum of Rs.10,21,403.80. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to re-fix the rent/license fee payable by the petitioner in respect of the shop allotted to him in Palika Bazar, New Delhi, in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gursharan Singh & Ors v.N.D.M.C., reported at I (1996) CLT 307 (SC)=JT 1996 (1) SC 647.

(2.) AS per the petition, the petitioner was allotted a shop bearing no.M-12, (Mezzanine Floor), Palika Bazar, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, at a monthly license fee of Rs.7547/-, vide a License Deed dated 19.9.1980. Actual physical possession of the shop in question was delivered to the petitioner on 10.10.1980. According to the petitioner, he was carrying on his business in conformity with the trade zone restrictions imposed/applicable with respect to the said shop and he never committed any breach or deviation from the trade zone restrictions applicable to the Trade Zone No. 3 in which the shop of the petitioner was located. Further as per the petitioner, respondent no.1 had fixed reserved rates for the said shopping centre, and it carved out certain specified zones and had also ear marked the same for carrying out certain specified business/trade.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was also impleaded as a party in the Special Leave Petition and was arrayed as one of the respondents before the Supreme Court of India. In support of this submission, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure P- 1, copy of memorandum of parties, filed at page 30 of the paper book, wherein the name of the petitioner finds mention at Sl. No.134 as a respondent. Strong reliance is also placed by counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gursharan Singh (supra), more particularly para 14(3), which reads as under: