RAJ KUMAR Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are displaced persons occupying stalls constructed by the respondent. New Delhi Municipal Committee, on the Irwin Road, New Delhi. The respondent has recently constructed a new market called the Mohan Singh Place. The land for the construction of the new market was given to the respondent on concessional terms by the Central Government, inasmuch as the petitioners who were displaced persons were to the allotted shops in this new market. Accordingly the petitioners were allotted shops in the new market by the letter dated 27-2-69 at annexure 'B' to the writ petition on the following conditions :-

(2.) Accordingly, the petitioners paid the licence tee (though under protest) and occupied the shops allotted to them. When the licence deeds in the form at annexure 'C' to the writ petition were presented to them for execution, the petitioners refused to execute the same as they alleged that they did not accept the various terms thereof, as well as the rent which the respondent had charged them. The petitioners do not state in the writ petition, which particular terms of the licence deed were not acceptable to them. The petitioners further aver that under section 176-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the respondent was bound to create leases in the favour, but the petitions did not state whether the said provision of law was applicable to Delhi and if so, whether the conditions thereof had been fulfilled in the present case. The respondent locked the shops allotted to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had refused to execute the licence deeds. The petitioners contend that they are willing to execute the licence deeds containing reasonable terms and reasonable rent. The petitioners pray that the respondent should be ordered to remove the locks from the shops allotted to the petitioners and not to disturb the possession of the petitioners. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have continued to keep possession of their stalls on Irwin Road also and the petitioners pray that the respondent should be ordered not to demolish those stalls unless and until the petitioners are finally rehabilitated in the new shops in the Mohan Singh Place.

(3.) The writ petition was resisted by the New Delhi Municipal Committee on the following grounds: Section 176-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, had not been applied to Delhi. The Mohan Singh Place had not been built by the respondent with a view to construct stalls for displaced persons and to lease them on such conditions as the State Government may specie within the meaning of section 176-A. The petitioners were merely permitted temporary occupation of the shops on the express condition that they should pay the licence fee fixed by the respondent. The licence fee was fixed after giving a patient hearing to the petitioners. The permission given to the petitioners to occupy the shops did not amount to delivery of legal possession to them. Since the petitioners did not comply with the essential condition on which the said permission was given, viz., the execution of the licence deeds, the respondent locked the shops, as the petitioners had no legal right to occupy them. The conditions of the licence deeds are reasonable and the petitioners are bound to accept them, if they want the shops to be allotted to them as licencees.