SURESH CHAND GUPTA Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 16th August, 012 of the learned Single Judge, of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.811/2002 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was preferred impugning the order dated 13th July, 2001 of the Additional District Judge exercising powers as an Appellate Authority under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 22nd August, 1991 of the Estate Officer of the respondent MCD of eviction of the appellant from property No.1629, Queens Road (First Floor), Delhi.

(2.) The counsel for the respondent MCD as well as respondent No.5 Mr. Nand Lal Kedia in person, also claiming to represent respondent No.4, Mr. Pawan Kumar Kedia appeared on advance notice (respondents No.2 & 3 are proforma parties) and considering the nature of the controversy and the challenge in the appeal, we, with consent, heard the counsels finally and reserved judgment. We have also requisitioned the writ record.

(3.) The order dated 22nd August, 1991 of the Estate Officer records, (i) that the appellant was a tenant of the first floor of property No.1629, Queens Road, Delhi for residential purpose under the respondent MCD; (ii) however the respondent MCD noticed that the said premises were being misused by the appellant for commercial purpose and a portion thereof had been sub-let by the appellant to one Sh. Pawan Kumar Kedia (respondent No.4 herein); (iii) that a show cause notice was issued by the Land & Estate Department of MCD on 29th October, 1987 requiring the appellant to show cause as to why the lease be not terminated; (iv) however no reply was given to the said show cause notice; (v) that thereafter a final show cause notice dated 22nd July, 1988 was given; (vi) that the appellant in reply thereto stated that the respondent No.4 was a distant relation of his father and was given a part of the premises as a guest but had not removed his complete luggage from the said portion; (vii) that the respondent MCD was not satisfied with the said reply and on site inspection concluded that the sub-tenant still existed; (viii) accordingly, the lease of the appellant was terminated vide order dated 12th September, 1988 and complaint filed with the Estate Officer; (ix) that a notice dated 27th October, 1988 was issued by the Estate Officer requiring the appellant to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made; (x) another show cause notice qua damages was issued; (xi) no replies were furnished to the said show cause notices - rather the factum of having allowed the respondent No.4 to use part of the premises was admitted, though as a guest; (xii) that it also transpired that the appellant had initiated proceedings before the Civil Court against the respondent No.4 for recovery of possession of the portion of the premises in occupation of the respondent No.4; (xiii) that the case continued to languish for another three years; (xiv) on 13th August, 1991 the appellant contended that the case could not be decided without evidence; (xv) that though a representation had earlier been made of stay of proceedings before the Estate Officer by the Civil Court but it subsequently transpired that a wrong statement to the said effect had been made.