MAHESH PANDEY Vs. N D M C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for the setting aside of the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer dated 31.07.2003. However, the said order was the subject matter of appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 before the learned Additional District Judge. The appeal was disposed of by an order dated 12.03.2007 whereby, in substance, the Estate Officer's order dated 31.07.2003 was upheld. However, with regard to the computation of damages, the rate of interest was reduced from 24% to 12% p.a.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 ought to have been permitted to be impleaded in the proceedings before the Estate Officer as well as before the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioner says that the shop was handed over to the respondent No.4 pursuant to a partnership agreement and the said handing over was notified to the concerned authorities. Accordingly, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that whatever the damages, the same need to be recovered from the respondent No.4 who was in actual possession and not from the petitioner. In connection with this argument, the learned Additional District Judge observed as under :

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to clause 12 of the original license which stands in the name of the petitioner. The said clause 12 reads as under :