Delhi District Court
Shri Rajinder Kumar vs Estate Officer on 23 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
PPA No. 01/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-000405-2014
In re:
1. Shri Rajinder Kumar
S/o Shri Ram Bhagat
R/o K-10, Udyog Nagar
Rohtak Road, Delhi.
2. Shri Bajrang Lal
S/o Shri Ram Bhagat
R/o 11/19, Punjabi Bagh East
Delhi - 110026. . . . . . . Appellants
Versus
1. Estate Officer
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Bhawan, INA
New Delhi - 110003.
2. The Lt. Governor
Representing The Union of India
As Chairman of Delhi Development Authority
Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines
Delhi - 110054. . . . . . . Respondents
Date of filing of the appeal : 14.02.2014
Date of arguments advanced
through Video Conferencing : 14.09.2020
Date of judgment : 23.09.2020
Appearances:
Mr. A. Alam alongwith Mr. Waseem Firoz, Advocates for the appellants.
Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate for the Delhi Development Authority.
PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 1 of 16
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the 'PP Act'), whereby the appellants are assailing the order dated 21.01.2014 passed under Section 5 of the PP Act by respondent no.1/Ld. Estate Officer for the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'DDA'), thereby directing Eviction of the appellants from the premises situated at K-10, Manufacturer's Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, Delhi, now known as Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, Delhi.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants is that they are the de facto owners and occupiers of the aforesaid property, which was sold to them by the originally allottee of the said industrial plot, namely Smt. Harbans Kaur, widow of Shri Avtar Singh, resident of H-80, Shivaji Park, New Delhi, by virtue of various customary documents viz. Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, receipt towards consideration and a letter confirming transfer of possession executed on 16.01.1986. It is stated that since the execution of the said documents, they have been using, occupying, enjoying and holding possession of the said property for all intents and purposes.
3. The grievance of the appellants is that on 04.02.2014, they were shocked to receive the copy of the impugned order dated PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 2 of 16 21.01.2014 purportedly passed by respondent no.1 representing respondent no.2/DDA. It is stated that they were never served with notice of any proceedings by the respondents under the PP Act and on reading the impugned order, they came to know that the original allottee had sub-divided the property and unauthorizedly sold the same to them in the year 1999; and for the first time, they came to know that the lease of the property had been cancelled by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi being the lessor on 18.07.2003 and that such determination of lease had been conveyed to the original lessee vide letter No. F.15(201)/Manfg./81/SL/R&I/1459 dated 02.09.2013. It is stated that upon such communication, the original allottee filed a civil suit bearing No. 317/2003 against the DDA whereby the Ld. Civil Court vide order dated 24.09.2003 restrained the DDA from taking forcible possession of the premises except according to due process of law.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
4. The impugned Eviction order dated 21.01.2014 is assailed interalia on the grounds that since the President of India was the allotting authority of the industrial plot, the respondents had no jurisdiction to terminate the lease without following the law and without holding inquiry into the procedure alleged to have followed for determining the lease of the industrial plot; and that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without affording any opportunity to the appellants and in violation of Article 21 and 77 of the Constitution of India; and that the respondent no.1/Ld. Estate Officer have not impleaded the Manufacturer's Cooperative Industrial Estate PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 3 of 16 Limited as the necessary and proper party to the proceedings; and that the premises in question is not a "public premises" and no cognizance of any complaint by the DDA could have taken by the respondent no.1/Ld. Estate Officer; and that the appellants are victim of selective application of law as there are several other industrial plots in the area which have been allotted similarly to other persons but occupied by persons other than the original allottees; and that the Ld. Estate Officer was working in a dual capacity functioning as the Administrative and also on the legal side, and therefore, assuming the role of a Suitor and as also that of a Prosecutor.
JOINT REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS TO THE APPEAL
5. The respondents in their joint reply to the present appeal have objected to the filing of the appeal for being without any cause of action and devoid of merits besides having been filed beyond limitation of 12 days for which no sufficient cause is shown. It is stated that the appellants have deliberately concealed and suppressed true material facts that they have no right, title or interest in the property concerned since the same was allotted to Smt. Harbans Kaur vide letter dated 01.02.1980 and the lease of the property was executed on 06.01.1981 and the field staff of the DDA had inspected the site on 17.03.1993 and reported that the said plot had been sold/sub-let to Shri Bajrang unauthorizedly without seeking prior permission of the lessor as per terms and conditions of lease and a show cause notice dated 20.04.1993 was served upon the lessee i.e. Smt. Harbans Kaur but no reply was received. It is stated that the site was inspected again on PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 4 of 16 19.04.1999 and the field staff reported that the property had been sold in three different parts to one Rajinder, Ashok Kumar and an unknown person, where temporary sheds had been constructed unauthorizedly and a further show cause notices dated 07.06.1999, 02.01.2001 and 18.10.2002 were sent to the lessee but were not replied; and on further survey conducted at the plot, the plot was found to have been sold to M/s. S.K.Enterprises, M/s. Plasto India and M/s. Shiv Shankar Polymer.
6. It is stated that Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi decided to determine the lease as per the Minutes dated 18.07.2003 and order conveying the cancellation letter / determination of the lease deed was sent on 03.09.2003 on account of violation / breach of the clause - II(3), 6(a) and 6(b) with the request to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the plot together with building and structures standing thereupon to the Assistant Director (Indl.), DDA. It is stated that so far as the order dated 25.03.2004 by the Ld. Civil Court, the due process of law has been followed and even the suit preferred by the appellants was later on dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of Shri Bajrang Lal, the appellant no.2 in the present appeal. To cut the long story short, the respondents have supported the impugned order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the Ld. Estate Officer.
7. In order to appreciate the real controversy in question, it would be expedient to reproduce the short and crisp order passed by the respondent no.1 / Ld. Estate Officer, which reads as under :
ORDER A request WAS RECEIVED FROM Dy. Director (Indl.) DDA/ vide his letter PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 5 of 16 no.F.15(201)/Manfg../81/SL/LSB(I) dated 5.5.04 to initiate eviction proceedings against Smt. Harbans Kaur w/o. Late Shri Avtar Singh, Ex-Lessee of plot no:- K-10, Manufacturer's Co-op. Industrial Estate Ltd, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, measuring 621.14 sq.yds. Consequent upon the cancellation of the lease on 18/07/2003 by the Hon'ble LG, Delhi on account of sub division and unauthorized sale of the property to three different parties/agencies namely I) Shri Rajinder, ii) Shri Ashok Kumar iii) unknown person in the year 1999 and subsequently sold out to three different persons/units 1) M/S Plasto India 2) M/S Shiv Shanker Polymer 3) M/S. S. K. Enterprises as per the survey report dated 13/11/2002. these firms are engaged in manufacturing of moulding powder.
Plot no.K-10, Udyog Nagar Industrial Area, Rohtak Road, Delhi was allotted to Smt. Harbans Kaur vide allotment letter no.F.36(31)79/L&B/ULC dated 01.09.1980. The lease deed was executed on 06.01.1981. The lease deed of the said plot was determined by Hon'ble LG, Delhi, being the lessor, on 18.07.03. The determination of lease was conveyed to the ex-lessee vide letter no.
F.15(201)/Manfg../81/SL/R&I/1459 dated 2.9.13. Thereafter ex-lessee filed suit in the court of Civil Judge vide suit no.317/03 and Hon'ble Court vide order dated 24.09.13 restrained DDA from taking forcible possession of the premises except with due process of law. Therefore, the possession of the property could not be taken at that stage.
Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the then Estate Officer to Smt. Harbans Kaur, the Ex- Lessee under sub-section (1) of section 4 and clause
(b)(ii) of sub section (2) of Section 4 of the Punlic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 on acount of sub division and unauthorized sale of property to three persons, asking then to appear before the Court of Estate Officer and to Show Cause, if any, against the eviction from the said public premises.
Subsequent Call letters and notices were issued to the ocupiers of the said property.
As regarding misuse, as per the survey inspection report of JE(Indl.) dated 6.2.2007, at the time of inspection, 3 persons Shri Vijay Kumar, Shri Sanmdeep Kumar and Shri Sunil Kumar were present PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 6 of 16 at the said premises and property was constructed from basement to top floor. Further, in his survey report dated 01/06/2007 JE(LSB)-I again confirmed that the misuse of the property is still continued.
During the course of proceedings under the PP Act, 1971, Shri Hari Singh, UDC, Indl. Branch, DDA on 25.09.2013 stated that the Dy. Director (Indl.) vide his letter dated 19.5.2011, had asked Shri Bajrang Lal, one of the occupiers of the property, w.r.t. his letter dated 11.1.2011, ti intimate as to in what capacity he had applied for restoration of the sub-lease which was determined due to subdivision and unauthorized sale of the property to three different persons/agencies. But no reply from the respondents was received.
On 11.11.2013, Shti Gyan Chand, Proprietor, M/s. S. K. Enterprises and Shri Rajender Kumar, Proprietor, M/s. Plasto India, appeared and stated that the three present ocupiers of the said property K-10, Udyog Vihar, Rohtak Road, Delhi are proprietorship firm and the properties of these three firms are real brothers.
They further stated that the said plot was not purchased from Shri Harbans Kaur w/o. Late Shri Avtar Singh and that the share of land they are occupying is due to partition of the plot among the three brothers. However, they failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their ownership due to such partition.
They also stated that they do not know as to who is presently the owner of the property no. K-10, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, Delhi and whether any matter related to the said property in under any court of law or not and Shri Bajrang Lal, Proprietor, M/S Shiv Shanker may be knowing about any such court case.
Shri Gyan Chand, and Shri Rajender Kumar also stated that their brother Sh. Bajrang Lal, Prop. M/S Shiv Shanker Polymer is not well for the lase one year hence, could not appear. However, they failed to produce any documents regarding his such long medical treatment and they had nothing more to add.
In response to the notice, finally on 16.12.2013, Shri Bajrang Lal, on behalf of M/S Shiv Shanker Polymenr appeared and stated that his son, Shri Sanjay Kumar is the proprietor of the firm. He further stated that the said property has been purchased from Smt. Harbans Kaur W/o Late Shri Avtar Singh, where PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 7 of 16 GPA is in the name of the following four persons :-
I) Smt. Sulochna Devi W/o Shri Rajender Kumar (Prop. M/S. Plasto India).
II) Smt. Sumitra Devi W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar. III) Shri Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Gyan Chand (Prop.
M/S. S. K. Enterprises).
IV) Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Shri Ratan Lal.
However, he could not produce the copy of the GPA or any other document in this regard. He stated that at present the three firms are functioning from the said premises - I) M/s. Plasto India ii) S. K. Enterprises and iii) M/s. Shiv Shanker Polymers. However, M/S Shiv Shanker Polymer has stopped functioning for the last three years. In support of his submission of discontinuance of business, he was asked to produce documentary evidence such as copy of bank statement, acknowledgement of surrender of Registration Certificate of the Firm issued by the Department of Trade and Taxes, G.N.C.T. of Delhi and electricity bills for the said period of discontinuance of business activities. But Shri Bajrang Lal failed to produce any documentary eviction in this regard. He also could not provide any document in support of ownership of the portion of the property he has been occupying and stated that there is no documentary evidence regarding ownership of the respective portion of the property and the respective portions are occupied through mutual understanding among the three brothers who are the proprietors of the three business firms which are functioning from the said property premises.
Shri Bajrang Lal stated that no court case is pending in any court of law against the said property. He also denied that he was ill for the last one year as was stated by his two brothers in their statement on 19.11.2013.
I have gone through the case and after taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, the ground of determination of lease, the survey / inspection report of the JF (Indl.), DDA, the views of the Industrial Deptt., DDA, the contention and statement of the respondents/occupiers of the property and the documents available on record, I am fully satisfied that the lease of the plot in question has been cancelled PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 8 of 16 and has not been restored in favour of respondent or anybody else. After cancellation of the lease of the plot in question, the respondent or whosoever is in unauthorized use and occupation of the said premises, is liable to be evicted.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under sub-section-I of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, I hereby orer that Smt. Harbans Kaur w/o Late Shri Avtar Singh, Ex. Lessee and all other persons concerned, i.e. Shri Gyan Chand, Proprietor, M/s. S. K. Enterprises and Shri Rajender Kumar, Proprietor, M/s. Plasto India and Sh. Bajrang Lal, Proprietor of M/s. Shiv Shanker Polymers and all others who may be in occupation of the said public premises or any part thereof, to vacate the said premises within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of this order. In the event of failure or refusal to comply with the order, the Respondent and all other persons concerned are liable to be evicted from the land in question, if need be, by sue of such force which may be necessary.
Order in Form-'B' issued separately.
Sd/-
(SHARAT KUMAR) ESTATE OFFICER
8. The present case was listed for hearing on 19.08.2020, on which date Mr. Alam, ld. Counsel for the appellants requested for adjournment stating that he was unwell. On the adjourned date i.e. 14.09.2020, Mr. Alam through his Associate Mr. Waseem Firoz was called upon to file written submissions, if any and the adjournment on the ground of counsel being unwell was declined. Arguments were advanced by Mr. Anupam Sharma, ld. Counsel for the DDA through Video Conferencing. No written submissions have been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the appellants. On being contacted, the ld. Counsel for the appellants has not chosen to respond either.
PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 9 of 16DECISION
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the DDA. I have also perused the instant appeal file as also record of the proceedings conducted by the Ld. Estate Officer Record. I have also gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record.
10. At the outset, the present appeal is bereft of any merits, misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. A bare perusal of the record of the Ld. Estate Officer would show that a notice u/s. 4(1) of the PP Act was initially issued to Smt. Harbans Kaur only on 08.09.2006 and thereafter, the matter lingered on due to pendency of the civil suit filed by the appellant Shri Bajrang Lal and also for awaiting the survey reports by the field staff of the DDA. Perusal of the order sheet of the Ld. Estate Officer on 06.02.2008 reveals that Shri Bajrang Lal appeared and submitted a representation inter alia informing that his Advocate Shri Prashant Batra was suffering from Viral fever and adjournment was granted. The signatures of Shri Bajrang Lal were taken in order to acknowledge his appearance before the Ld. Estate Officer. The presence of Shri Bajrang Lal was then recorded on 19.03.2008 and that of his counsel Shri Prashant Batra on 26.03.2008. The presence of Shri Bajrang Lal was then recorded on 06.06.2008, his counsel on 09.07.2008 and on various subsequent dates. It is suffice to state that on 17.03.2010, Shri Bajrang Lal stated before the Ld. Estate Officer that he had applied for restoration of the lease deed of the property and the case then lingered on for its outcome.
PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 10 of 1611. At this stage, it is pertinent to take note of the fact that appellant Rajinder Kumar filed WP(C) No. 2411/2014 and the said writ was disposed of by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli, Judge, High Court of Delhi vide order dated 12.05.2014 thereby directing as under :-
"6.In view of the aforesaid submission, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with directions issued to the respondents/DDA to take a decision on the representation dated 5.3.2014 submitted by the petitioners to the Vide-Chairman, DDA, in accordance with law, preferably within eight weeks from today under written intimation to them."
12. In so far as the proceedings before the respondent no.1 / Ld. Estate Officer, it was recorded on 08.03.2013 that as per the survey report, three different concerns, namely M/s. Plasto India, M/s. Shiv Shanker Polymers and M/s. S.K. Enterprises were in use and occupation of the property, and accordingly, notices u/s. 4(1) of the PP Act were ordered to be issued to said three concerns. It is recorded in the order sheet on 12.06.2013 that Shri Rajender Kumar appeared on behalf of M/s. Plasto India while Shri Gyan Chand appeared on behalf of M/s. S.K. Enterprises. On 19.11.2013, the following order was passed :-
"19.11.2013 Appeared Sh. Gyan Chand, Prop. M/s. S.K. Enterprises and Sh. Rajender Kumar, Prop. M/s. Plasto India from the respondent side, however none from M/s. Shiv Shanker Polymer was present, nor anyone from the department was present.
Both the respondents stated that all the three present occupier of the property K-10. Udyog Nagar are proprietorship firms and their owners are real brothers. The plot was not purchased from Mrs. Harbans Kaur by M/s. S.K. Enterprise nor M/s. Plasto India rather they got the share of their land wherein PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 11 of 16 they are occupying due to partition among brothers. They expressed their inability to tell atleast the ownership of the property at present. They did not produce any documents in support of their contention that the portion of the property they are currently occupying or which is under the possession has been obtained as a result of partition among the brothers. Both the respondents do not know as to who is presently the owner of the property No. K-10, Udyog Nagar.
Lease was detained on 18.07.2003 as area of the premises measures 621.14 Sq. Yards.
The respondents sated that they do not know whether any Court case is under progress or not. Sh. Bajrang Lal, the Prop of M/s. Shiv Shanker Polymer may be knowing about any Court case, if any. Respondent Sh. Bajrang Lal is not well for the last one year hence could not appear. However, no medical treatment related documents furnished by them.
On perusal of the file it is seen that the respondent attended the Court on 17.05.2012 and thereafter on 12.06.2013 despite services of various summons and notices.
They have nothing more to add. Request to produce medical documents of Sh. Bajrang Lal, Prop M/s. Shiv Shanker Polymers. Adj. to 06.12.2017 as requested. Issue notice to M/s. Shiv Shanker Polymers accordingly as also to the department."
13. Further, on 16.12.2013, the following order was passed :-
"16.12.2013 Appeared Sh. Bajrang Lal from M/s. Shiv Shanker Polymers as stated that the proprietor of the firm is hi sons Sh. Sanjay Kumar and is engaged in mfg of moulding powder. None for the department present.
The property, K-10 Udyog Nagar has been purchased from Smt. Harbans Kaur w/o Lt Sh. Avtar Singh whose GPA is in the name of Sh. Bajrang Lal and agreement to sale is in the name of (1) Smt. Sulochna Devi w/o Sh. Rajender Kumar (2) Smt. Sumitra Devi W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar and (3) Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Gyan Chand and (4) Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Sh. Ratan Lal. However, could not provide any copy of GPA or agreement to sale.
At present three firms are running from the said premises M/s. Shiv Shnaker Polymers, M/s. Plasto India and M/s. S.K. Enterprises. Stated that M/s. Shiv Shanker Polymers has stopped functioning from the premises for the last 3 years The respondent is directed to furnish a documentary evidence in PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 12 of 16 support of such closure like - Bank A/C (statement) of the firm, acknowledgment receipt of surrender of registration certificate of Dept of Trade and Taxes and last electricity bill.
When confronted about the proof of ownership of the portion of property being occupied by these firms, Sh. Bajrang Lal stated that there is no documentary evidence in support of ownership of respective portions however, the respective portions have been occupied through mutual understanding among the brothers who are the proprietor of three firms functioning from the site.
At present there is no court case pending against the said property in any Court in India.
Stated that he was not ill for the last one year. He has nothing more to add.
Issue notice to Ghan Chand Sh. Rajender Kumar to provide copy of agreement to sale regarding to K-10, Udyog Nagar"
14. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that firstly, the plea of the appellants that they were not afforded any opportunity of hearing is palpably false and misleading, completely belied from the records of the Ld. Estate Officer, which act is a gross misuse and abuse of the process of the Court. Secondly, the pleas that the premises in question is not a public premises within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the PP Act is only noted to be out rightly rejected since Section 2(e) (3)(ii) clearly stipulates that the term "public premises" would mean "any premises belonging to DDA, where such premises are in possession of, or, leased out, by the said authority'' while clause (iii) provides that "any premises belonging to, taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of any State Government or the government of any Union Territory" . It is admitted position that the perpetual lease dated 06.01.1981 had been executed by the Land & Development Department, Delhi Administration, and the land in PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 13 of 16 question was ultimately got transferred to the DDA, that acquired power over its management, regulation and development, and hence the premises in question is by all accounts a "public premises".
15. The PP Act is a special enactment for eviction of 'unauthorized occupants' from 'public premises' in a summary manner. As per Section 4 of the Act, a notice to show cause against the unauthorised occupant of any public premises is required to be issued by the Estate Officer. As per Section 5 of the Act, after considering the cause shown and evidence if any produced by the alleged unauthorised occupant, the Estate Officer on being satisfied that the person was in unauthorised occupation of the public premises, an eviction order is required to be passed by the Estate Officer, requiring all persons to vacate the public premises. Unauthorised occupation as per Section 2(g) of the Act means, the occupation by any person who has entered into occupation of any premises without lawful authority as well as occupation which was permissive without lawful authority as well as occupation which was permissive at the inception but has ceased to be so. The second part of the definition is inclusive in the nature and it expressly covers continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any person whatsoever. This part covers a case where a person had entered into occupation legally under valid authority but, who continues in occupation after the authority under which he was put in occupation PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 14 of 16 has expired or has been determined.
16. Without further ado, it may be noted that the Perpetual Lease Deed executed between the Land & Development Department, Delhi Administration and Smt. Harbans Kaur on 06.01.1981, vide relevant clause provided as under:
"II(3) The Sub-Lesee shall not deviate in any manner from the layout plan nor alter the size of the industrial plot whether by sub-division, amalgamation or otherwise. 6(a) The Sub-Lesee shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the industrial plot in any form or manner benami or otherwise to a person who is not a member of the Lessee.
6(b) The Sub-Lessee shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the industrial plot to any other member of the Lessee except with the previous consent in writing of the Lessor which he shall be entitled to refuse in his absolute discretion."
17. Assuming for the sake of convenience, the appellants purchased the property in question from the erstwhile lessee Smt. Harbans Kaur, it is palpably manifested that the original allottee/lessee violated the terms and conditions of the Perpetual Lease Deed dated 06.01.1981. Therefore, the appellants are clearly "unauthorized occupants" with regard to the public premises in question in terms of Section 2(g) of the PP Act as the perpetual lease has already been determined by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor being the Administrator for the premises belonging to DDA vide order dated 18.07.2003. A fortiori the original allottee / lessee as also the subsequent purchasers of the different parts of the property or otherwise as brothers on partition (which they failed to prove) have no legal right, title or interest to continue to use or occupy or be in possession of the public premises in question.
PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 15 of 16RELIEF
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is dismissed. Further, costs of Rs. 50,000/- each is also imposed upon the appellants. This shall not preclude the DDA from taking appropriate action for recovery of possession of the subject property along with damages under Section 7 of the PP Act for wrongful use, occupation and possession of the premises as per the law.
19. The Record of the Estate Officer be sent back forthwith along-with a copy of this Judgment. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the ld. Counsel for the parties through their e-mail address for their information. The appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
DHARMESH Digitally signed by
DHARMESH SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2020.09.24 20:46:49
+0530
Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA)
rd
on 23 September, 2020 Principal District & Sessions Judge(West)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
PPA No. 01/2016 Rajinder Kumar & Anr. vs. Estate Officer & Anr. Page 16 of 16