BAKSHI RAM Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 18th May, 1994, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in M.C.A.46/92. The petitioner filed the civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-DDA, on the ground that the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed premises. It is also mentioned that prior to occupying the present premises, they were carrying on their business of PVC waste at Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

(2.) In the year 1982, the DDA through their Director (Lands) approached the plaintiff and made a request for shifting their business from Tank Road to PVC market, Jwalapuri, New Delhi. It is also mentioned in the petition that the respondent promised them to give 84 sq. mtrs. of land, along with other shopkeepers of the market. The petitioner acting on the promise extended by the DDA, shifted to PVC market and was allotted the disputed premises /plot, and they had been carrying on their business without any intervention. It is further mentioned that in May, 1988, a huge fire broke out in the PVC market at Jwalapuri, as a result of which, the entire record of the petitioner/ plaintiff is stated to have been destroyed. The Delhi Development Authority contested the suit and filed a written statement. It was pleaded that when survey was conducted, at Tank Road, 30 persons were removed, who were carrying on their business there, but the petitioner was not found doing his business at the Tank Road. It is also submitted that the petitioner has unauthorisedly encroached upon the disputed premises as rank trespasser.

(3.) The trial court heard the learned counsel at length and came to the conclusion that the petitioner' failed to furnish any document by which it can be established that the petitioner ever acquired the premises in question. The trial court also observed that even before the fire incident, no document was placed on record by which it could be established that the petitioner was ever in possession of the disputed premises. The petitioner could not give any explanation why his name was not mentioned in the list of persons who were found to be in possession of the premises in question. No mala fides were attributed against the DDA for striking off the petitioner's name from the list provided by them.