KALU RAM Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition along with Civil Writs Nos 311-D to 340-D, 441-U to 479-D and 545-1) to 550-D of 1962, were referred to a Division Bench in pursuance of the order dated the 10th of May 1963 made by Dua J.

(2.) It is common ground that the excision in civil writ No. 228-D of 1962 will govern all other writ petitions including Civil Writ Nos 41-0 to t)9-D, 97-D to 100-D, 117-D, 122-D, 128-D) to 130-D, 219-D, 220D,256-D,615-D. to617-D, 735D.835-D to838-Dand925-Dof 1963 ; 88-D, 425-D, 654-D and 655-D of 1964 and we are therefore confining ourselves to the facts of Civil Writ No. 228 D of 1962. The petitioner was originally a pavement vendor in Connaught Place from where he was removed and provided with a pro-fabricated small stall No. 216 on lrwin Road, which was constructed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee (respondent No. 1) in 1950 The New Delhi Municipal Committee demanded a rent at the rate of Rs 30.00 per mensein from the petitioner for the said stall thereupon the petitioner and the other allottees moved the Rent Controller under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1947 for fixation of standard rent which was fixed at Rs. 19/12.00 . The petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 felt aggrieved by the said order and filed appeals to the District Judge and the rent was fixed at Rs.6/2.00 .p.m on 26th of July 1954 The New Delhi Municipal Committee filed arevision petition in the Couit which was allowed on 13th of October 1958 on the ground that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for fixing any standard rent since there was no contract properly executed between the parties in accordance with section 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The Municipal Committee took no steps thereafter till the end of December 1960 when it demanded licence fee in respect of the stall in question which the petitioner had vacated some time in early 1957. This demand was resisted by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the same was barred by time. The New Delhi Municipal Committee applied to the State Officer for proceeding to recover the said amount as arrears of licence fee under section 7 ( 1 ) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1958. The Estate Officer respondent No. 2 ordered the recovery of licence fee describing it as arrears of rent. He held that the provisions of Limitation Act were not applicable to such recoveries. An appeal was taken against this order to the Court of Additional District Judge by the petitioner but the same was disallowed. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petitions were filed challenging the order of the Additional District Judge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken two objections to the recovery proceedings. He contends that the amounts sought to be recovered was not "rent" but a licence fee and therefore the provisions of section 7 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (No 32 of 1958) were not applicable. He further submits that under section 7(1) it is only such arrears of rent as are "payable" in respect of any public premises, that can be recovered under section 7 (1) and since the claim was time barred, section 7 (1) of the Act and consequently section 7 (3) did not apply. There is no force in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rent was not defined in the Act as originally enacted and its definition was for the first time inserted by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 40 of 1963. Section 2 of the said amendment Act is in the following terms: -