NAZIR AHMED Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this appeal are that the property bearing No. 2929 Sarai Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi consisting of three rooms, measuring 9'x11',8'x11' and 11'x11', were in the tenancy of the appellant wherein he was running a grocer's shop for 25 years. These were demolished during the emergency in 1975-76. An assurance was however, given to him that an alternative accommodation will bs provided. On the basis of that assurance the appellant was entitled to an allotment of 40 sq. mtr. but he was allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (herein D.D.A.), 10 sq. meter of land at Shahzada Bagh, Phase-1, Plot No. 280. The D.D.A. states that besides 10 sq. mtrs. of land he was allotted three houses one in his name and two in the names of his sons each comprising two rooms with store, kitchen and lavatory. The area covered by each tenament was 25 sq. mtr. The appellant, however, does not seem to be satisfied and filed an application on 22nd May, 1979 under Order 33 Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as an indigent person in which he prayed that he had no means to pay the Court fees and that a decree for recovery of Rs. 50,000.00 for compensation for loss of business be passed in favour of the plaintiff or in the alternative the D.D.A. be directed by means of a mandatory injunction or declaration to allot to him a plot of 40 sq. mtr. in place of the illegal demolition.

(2.) The D.D.A. contested the factum of indigence and also contended that the appellant had no cause of action and that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge by his judgment dated 1st December 1980 held that the appellant was holding a plot which was of the value of Rs. 2000.00 per sq. mtr. and besides he had residential accommodation. His case that he was earning only Rs. 2-50 per day was not correct. He failed to prove that he is an indigent person and no doubt the Court could grant him time to pay Court fees, but the application was dismissed because the appellant was given much more than what was due to him and yet he wanted to get still more by setting up false pleas. The application disclosed no cause of action and further it was barred by limitation. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted forma pauperis on 30-4-82.