DDA Vs. PARSU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions arise out of the common order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 8.2.2006 passed in appeals preferred by the respondents under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The appeals, were preferred by the respondents against the separate eviction orders passed by the Estate Officer.

(2.) The impugned order, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, suffers from an infirmity as it was passed upon a misconstruction that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1986) I SCC 133 held that in the case of a perpetual lease, the Estate Officer did not have authority or jurisdiction to direct eviction under Section 5(2) of the said Act under a'summary process. The exact words used by the learned Additional District Judge are as under:

(3.) This understanding of the learned Additional District Judge in respect of the ratio of Express Newspapers (supra) is clearly incorrect. The position has been clarified by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Ambitious Gold Nib Manufacturing (P) Ltd.: (LPANo. 976/2004) dated 21.2.2006. After examining the decisions in Express Newspapers (supra) and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Another v. Punjab National Bank and Others: (1990) 4 SCC 406 in some detail, the Division Bench concluded as under:-