RAJMDER PRASAD JAIN Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent New Delhi Municipal Committee,hereinafter called 'the Committee" is the owner of the building known asPalika Parking. On 30th of December, 1986, the Committee invited tendersfor licensing of store/godown space measuring 3088 sq. ft. in Palika Parkingopposite Regal building, Connaught Circus New Delhi. Only two tenderswere received by the stipulated date. The tender of Shri R.P. Jain, thepetitioner herein, offering Rs 7. 51 p. sq. ft. per mensum was the highest. Theoffer of the petitioner was accepted. As per the terms and conditions of thetender application, the petitioner was asked to deposit the security amounting to Rs. 82,763.52 after adjusting Rs. 10000.00deposited as earnest money,and to months' licence fee in advance amounting to Rs. 46,381.76. Thepetitioner agreed to deposit the amounts asked for but in the meantime,he pointed out that the work in the said premises is still in progress, and thefollowing among other items are required to be completed to make the placegoods for habitation :

(2.) It appears that the premises were not .made habitable to thesatisfaction of the petitioner even though he took over the possession ofthe premises on 15.5.87 from the Executive Engineer of the Committee. Asthe dispute lingered on for quite sometime, and the petitioner neither paid thearrears of licence fee or executed the licence deed furnished by the Committeedespite reminders, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelledby the Administator on 30/10/1987. However, on the request of thepetitioner, the matter was reconsidered by the Committee and the order ofcancellation was revoked on 1st of December, 1987, without prejudice to therights and privileges of the Committee. Even thereafter, no amicable solutionto the problem of the making the premises habitable was reached. Ultimately,vide order dated 8/04/1988, the Administrator, N DM C. cancelled theallotment for committing various defaults by the petitioner- The informationof this order was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 14/04/1988(Annexure P-51) The petitioner was directed to stop the use of store/godownspace for any purpose whatsoever forthwith and hand over its vacant possession to the Executive Engineer, N.D.M.C. He was also required to paya sum of Rs. 2,13,613.30 as arrears of licence fee with interest at the rateof 20/o from 11.5.87. As a consequence of the cancellation of the allotment,proceedings under Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, were initiated. The petitioner filed his replybefore the Estate Officer and simultaneously filed the present petition forthe issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 7.6 88 issued by the Estate Officer, N.D.M.C.directing the Committee to comply with the requirements laid down by theChief Fire Officer, M.CD. for habitation of the space at underground park'ing. While issuing the "Rule", the Division Bench of this Court stayeddispossession of the petitioner and further directed that no final order in theproceedings under the P.P. Act be passed.

(3.) The terms and conditions for licensing of space meant for storage/godown at underground parking are contained in the Memorandum of Information issued by the Committee vide Annexure 'A'. This Memorandumpresupposes that the licensed space is fit for habitation and/or store/godownand the petitioner has to abide by the vasious conditions to put it to permissible use. Immediately after the acceptance of his tender and before theexecution of the licence deed, the petitioner pointed out the various defectsin the construction of the space without which the space cannot be used forstorage of sophisticated electronic items like V.C.R. in which business thepetitioner is engaged. His main grievance is two-fold :