Delhi District Court
D.C.M . vs . Sh. Chet Ram on 14 December, 2011
D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDRA KR. SHARMA,
ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER, NORTH DISTT. DELHI.
E No. 96/2011
Unique Case ID No: 02401C522072004
D.C.M. LIMITED
Vikrant Tower,
4, Rajindra Place,
New Delhi-110008. ...Petitioner.
Versus
SH. CHET RAM (Since Deceased)
Through LRs:-
(i). SMT. SAGARWATI @ SAMARWATI
Widow of Late Sh. Chet Ram
(ii). SH. RADHEY SHYAM
(iii). SH. MAHINDER KUMAR
(iv). SH. RAJINDER KUMAR
All Sons of Late Sh. Chet Ram
C/o. Shop No. 13, Ganesh Line No. -6
Mpl No. 9020, Ward No. 16-E,
Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj,
Delhi-110006. ...Respondents.
E no. 96/2011 Page 1/22
D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram
Date of institution of the petition : 02/02/1996
Date on which order was reserved : 18/10/2011
Date of Decision : 14/12/2011
JUDGMENT
14/12/2011 Vide this judgment, I shall decide the petition filed on behalf of petitioner U/s. 14 (1) (g) & (L) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (herein after referred to as D.R.C. Act).
Relevant facts for disposal of the present petition are as follows:-
1. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner has withdrawn the petition U/s 14 (1)(g) of D.R.C. Act through his counsel who made his statement on 21/09/2011.
2. Initially the present eviction petition was filed in the year 1996 and upon the service of summons respondent (since deceased) filed the W.S. and replication to the W.S. was filed.
3. The present petition which was later allowed to be amended was filed with the allegations that the petitioner is the E no. 96/2011 Page 2/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram owner and landlord and respondent (since deceased) is tenant in respect of one shop bearing no. 13 in property bearing Municipal no. 9020, Ganesh Line-6, Ward no. 16-E, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition in property no. 7303, 'D' Lines, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as suit property). The suit property is required to the petition in order to carry out building work in pursuance of Improvement Scheme/Development Scheme under the Delhi Master Plan, 1962 as approved by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The said construction can not be carried out without being vacated the respondent from the possession. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company and is the owner of 52 acres of land in Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj area of Delhi. The said area has been declared as slum area and the necessary permission has been obtained by the petitioner to file the present petition from the Competent Authority (Slum).
4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal is the Vice President (Real Estate Department) who is the Principal Officer of the petitioner company and, thus, is having authority to sign, verify and file the present petition for and on behalf of petitioner company in view of Resolution no. 30 dated 31/07/1998 passed at the meeting of Board E no. 96/2011 Page 3/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram of Directors of the petitioner's company and he is also a General Power of Attorney dated 01/08/1998 executed in his favour.
5. In the year 1989 the petitioner had set up a Textile Mill in the name of Delhi Cloth Mill upon the said property but same has been closed w.e.f. 01/04/1989 in terms of permission granted by the Delhi Administration and the order dated 01/03/1989 of the Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and order dated 27/03/1989 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. It is further alleged that after coming into force of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and in compliance with the provision thereof, Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as D.D.A.) proceeded to prepare the Master Plan of Delhi. The said prepared Master Plan was approved by the Central Government U/s 9 (ii) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and published in September 1962. In view of the provision of Delhi Development Act, the said plan has statutory force and any person using any land and building contrary to the provisions of the said master plan would contravene the provision of Sec. 14 of the said Act and shall be liable to be penalised U/s 29 of the said Act. Under the said Master Plan, the Delhi has been divided into various zones and Zonal Developments plans have also been prepared. The said Bara Hindu E no. 96/2011 Page 4/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram Rao complex falls within District 'B' of Zone B-1 prepared under the Master Plan. According to the Master Plan the property in Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj including property in dispute under the user of the petitioner company has been provided for residential complex and flatted factories. On page 18 of the Master Plan of Delhi, the use of D.C.M. site is quoted as under:-
"The Delhi Cloth Mills have to move out of this congested area to the extensive industrial districts according to the time schedule given for non-conforming uses. The present site should be developed for flatted factories in gradual stages to relocate the industries now located in Ahata Kidara and other areas."
7. In view of the provision of Master Plan of Delhi, the petitioner company is required to shift its textile mill from Bara Hindu Rao.
8. The petitioner company decided to close the Delhi Cloth Mills as it was forced to take this decision in view of the stand taken by the various government bodies that the running of the textile mills in the Bara Hindu Rao area is a non-confirming use of the said land.
E no. 96/2011 Page 5/22D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram
9. It is further alleged that in view of the mandatory provision of the Master Plan of the Delhi providing the user of the company property for residential and for flatted factories, the petitioner company decided to put its property to the use provided under the Master Plan. Accordingly, the petitioner company asked its Architect M/s Kavinde & Rai to draw up a proposal for the re- development of the Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj area for flatted factory purposes and for Residential Group Housing Complex respectively in accordance with the land use provided under the Master Plan and the said proposal was sent to the D.D.A. at meeting held with them on 19/07/1982 which was discussed on that very day.
10. D.D.A vide its Resolution no. 26 dated 01/02/1983 resolved that the petitioner company's proposal for re-development of the property into group housing residential complex and flatted factories be approved and granted its no objection for the said re- development scheme. On 30/03/1989, Lt. Governor, Delhi granted permission to the petitioner company U/s 25-0 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to close the mill unit at Bara Hindu Rao, Kishan Ganj area under the order dated 27/03/1989 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court dated 01/03/1989.
E no. 96/2011 Page 6/22D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram
11. On 08/05/1989 the petitioner company submitted the Lay out plan of the proposed complex at the DCM site, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as M.C.D.) for its approval. On 26/05/1989 Lay Out plan of the proposed residential complex at Kishan Ganj, Delhi was also submitted with the MCD for its approval. On 24/11/1989 the MCD vide its Resolution no. 1136 and Resolution no. 1137 has approved the Lay Out Plan filed by the petitioner company for re-development of the said properties at Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj, Delhi and the subject matter of the present petition is covered by the aforesaid Resolutions. Vide order dated 01/06-11-1991 the MCD has returned to the petitioner company the approved Lay Out plan duly authenticated for the flatted factory complex at DCM site, Bara Hindu Rao and vide letter dated 17/12/1991 the MCD has returned the approved Lay out plan for group housing residential complex at Kishan Ganj, Delhi. Vide letter dated 16/01/1992, the MCD also approved the demolition plan submitted by the petitioner company for the demolition of the structure for its proposed flatted factory complex.
12. It is further alleged that the petitioner company is obliged to use its land at Kishan Ganj and Bara Hindu Rao for the specific E no. 96/2011 Page 7/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram purpose provided under the Master Plan of Delhi and for the said purpose, the petitioner company has sought necessary approval of the MCD and DDA. The right of the petitioner company to re- develop its property aforesaid has been upheld by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Civil Writ no. 2687/86 in case titled as DCM Vs. DDA vide judgment dated 02/05/1987 and it was held as under:-
"The petitioner has the right to property and thus redevelopment of the DCM site into flatted factories and residential use. Indeed the petitioner has the obligation to redevelop the land and to put the same to such use as is permitted by the provision of the Master Plan."
"Once a plan has come into force of operation, it can not be altered or modified except as provided under Section 11-A of the Act. The user of the land and building in contravention of the Plan is prohibited by Sec. 14 of the Act. Any person using any land or building contrary to the provisions of the Master Plan after it came into operation would contravene the provisions of Sec. 14 and would be liable to be penalized under Sec. 29 of the Act."
"It is thus clearly established on the record that under Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan, the E no. 96/2011 Page 8/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram land use of the DCM site is for flatted factories and residential houses and the "No Objection Certificate" was granted to the petitioner of the comprehensive scheme for the redevelopment of the land for flatted factories and residential area."
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 13/03/1990 has upheld the Resolution no. 26 dated 01/02/1983 of the D.D.A whereby the scheme of the petitioner for redevelopment of its land for flatted factories and residential complex was approved and in terms of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also directed the D.D.A to grant the approval subject to the condition that petitioner is to remove certain objections raised by the D.D.A and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 01/05/1991 passed in I.A. Nos. 4-7 of 1990 in CA nos. 1401 and 1402 of 1990 has upheld the right of the petitioner to redevelop of its 52 acres free hold land.
14. Property in dispute is required to develop as per Master Plan of Delhi as the suit premises is part of the property on which redevelopment is to be carried out and petitioner company is obliged to carry out the redevelopment in accordance with the mandatory provision of Master Plan and pursuance of E no. 96/2011 Page 9/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram redevelopment scheme approved by the DDA and the eviction of the respondent is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum and would in turn give effect to the implementation of the Master Plan of Delhi, 1962. The redevelopment is in public interest and is in furtherance of the planned development of the area in which suit premises is located and for the purpose of reconstruction, the petitioner company has entered into a collaboration agreement with two well known renowned builders of Delhi i.e. M/s Kailash Nath & Associates and M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. who were to obtain various approvals for redevelopment and construction of flatted factories and to reconstruct the same at their own costs, but the said builders did not discharge their obligations and the dispute arose with the said builders and later on the said disputes were settled and the agreement entered into with them stood cancelled.
15. In the meantime, a company known as DCM Estates and Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred to as DEIL) agreed to acquire right to sell the residential flats and factories in the aforesaid Real Estate project of the petitioner and undertook to carry out the redevelopment work at its own costs and according to the scheme and accordingly a scheme for reconstruction and rearrangement of the petitioner company was filed before the E no. 96/2011 Page 10/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram Hon'ble High Court which was approved by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 30/09/2003 and 29/10/2003 U/s 394 of the Companies Act in CP no. 247/2000 and CP no. 251/2000 and in accordance with the scheme, the DIEL undertook the development of the entire project at their own costs and petitioner company is to remove of equators, occupiers, tenants from the premises and to passover the vacant possession to the DIEL and a copy of the aforesaid judgment was filed with the Registrar of Companies. The implementation of the Master Plan for the purpose of planned development of Delhi is a statutory duty cast upon the petitioner and the petitioner has requisite funds, sources to carry out the said scheme as agreed by the DEIL.
16. Amended W.S. was filed on behalf of LRs raising the similar pleas as was raised in the original W.S. The preliminary objection was taken that the petition is not maintainable as the material fact has not been disclosed. It is stated that Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj area are notified slums including the DCM Complex and as per the Master Plan, the land of DCM Ltd is for flatted factories in and flatted factories are to be allotted to persons now working in the slum of Ahata Kidara Areas of 15.03 acres of land, out of total land of about 63 acres under the possession of the petitioner's company was lease hold lands E no. 96/2011 Page 11/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram under 10 leases granted under Govt. Grants Act, 1895. However, some of the leases expired before 13/10/1992 and that petitioner is unauthorized occupant qua such lands. It is further alleged that initially a resolution approving the scheme was passed on 01/02/1983 by DDA covering the entire area of 63 acres as the petitioner's Company concealed the fact that 15.03 acres of land are lease hold lands. The re-development scheme of the petitioner including the group housing and flatted factories were not for the benefit of the people living in the notified slum of B-1 zone which included Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj Area and was also not covered under the Delhi Co-operative Society Act, 1972. Even Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the DDA/MCD to grant approval for the re-development scheme subject to removal of the objections to its scheme raised by the DDA and MCD. It is further alleged that even the property in dispute is on the lease hold property and petitioner has suppressed the fact that petitioner is no more landlord after 13/10/1992 thus, has no right and further the leases were terminated vide resolution no. 142/1992 which was challenged by petitioner's company through writ petition no. 4398/92 but it was withdrawn on 05/01/1995. It is further alleged that personal interest of the petitioner's company can not over-ride the public interest in view of the provision U/sec. 19 (4) of the Slum Act, 1956 and thus, petitioner has no locus E no. 96/2011 Page 12/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram standi to maintain the present petition and present petition is also hit by the Provision of Public Premises Act.
17. On merits the respondent has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in view of the termination of the lease in favour of the petitioner's company vide resolution no. 142/1992 dated 13/10/1992, disputed the correctness of the site plan. The respondent further disputed the bonafide requirement of the petitioner. It is further denied that any public interest is involved nor petitioner's company is under obligation to redevelop under any Act nor the petitioner has necessary funds and petitioner's company is bound to offer the accommodation to the respondent first.
18. Amended replication to the amended W.S. was filed denying the preliminary objections as well as allegations on merits and reiterating moreover the same facts as alleged in the petition. It is further alleged that suit premises is part of free hold land and not of lease hold land.
19. After completion of the pleadings, before revival of the present matter, witness Sh. Yash Kumar was examined as PW-1 and placed reliance upon the documents of which Certificate of E no. 96/2011 Page 13/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram Incorporation Company in favour of the petitioner as Ex. PW-1/1, Extract of Resolution no. 10 dated 11/04/1992 as Ex.PW-1/2, G.P.A. in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal is Ex. PW-1/3, Copy of order passed by the Competent Authority (Slum) as Ex. PW-1/4, Site Plan as Ex. PW-1/5 and was cross examined at length. But the matter was adjourned sine-die vide order dated 01/09/2001 and was ordered to be revived again vide order dated 09/05/2005 and since during the pending proceedings respondent was died, therefore, his legal heirs were allowed to be taken on record vide order dated 09/05/2005 the original petition was also allowed to be amended incorporating the subsequent facts regarding the termination of agreement with M/s. Kailash Nath & Associates and M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd., Subsequent scheme of arrangement duly approved by the Hon'ble High Court and handing over of the development work to the newly incorporated company known as DCM. Estates and Infrastructure Ltd. (D.E.I.L.)
20. Petitioner after revival of present case further examined Mr. Ajay Khanna, PW-2 who filed his affidavit in examination in chief to prove that presently development work is undertaken by the D.E.I.L. by filing the affidavit of the said witness and PW-2 relied upon the documents of which certified copies of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court as Ex. PW-2/1 E no. 96/2011 Page 14/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram and Ex. PW-2/2 and the certified copies of the certificate incorporation as Ex. PW-2/3 and was cross examined at length.
21. Mr. Harish Chandra Singh appeared as PW-3 who filed his affidavit in examination in chief deposing moreover the same facts as alleged in the petition and in support of his testimony he placed reliance upon the documents of which certified copy of the judgment dated 22/05/1987 in Civil Writ Petition no. 2687/86 as Ex. PW-3/1, Copy of the Resolution no. 1137 dated 24/11/1989 as Ex. PW-3/2 and certified copy of the layout plan approved by the MCD as Ex. PW- 3/3.
22. Mr. Rajinder Kumar appeared as one of the LR as RW-1 and filed his affidavit deposing moreover the same facts as alleged in the W.S. and was cross examined at length. .
23. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have perused the record carefully.
* Since in all the cases bearing E nos. 96/2011, 97/2011, 670/2006 and 99/2009, the petition has been filed on identical grounds and defence has been taken almost of similar nature, E no. 96/2011 Page 15/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram therefore, I am giving my findings in all the cases vide this common order.
A. In the petition U/Sec. 14 (1)(l) of the D.R.C. Act, the petitioner is required to prove that he is the landlord and respondent is a tenant, that the suit property is required to the petitioner in order to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in pursuance of any Improvement Scheme or Development Scheme and that such building work can not be carried out without the premises being vacated.
(i). So far as relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, there is no denial by the respondent Mr. Keshav Prasad in eviction petition no. 670/2006 and by the respondent Smt. Krishna Devi in eviction petition no. 99/2009 of the relationship of landlord and tenant. However, respondent Mr. Chet Ram in eviction petition no. 96/2011 and Mr. Jassa Ram in eviction no. 97/2011 had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant stating that since the lease in favour of the petitioner company had already expired in the year 1992 granted by the DDA and since the suit properties are situated upon the said lease hold land, therefore, the relationship of E no. 96/2011 Page 16/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram landlord and tenant had come to an end. However, nothing has been placed on record that these two tenants are paying the rent to somebody else nor it has been proved on record that the lease was terminated in the year 1992. However, even if it is assumed that lease was terminated, it makes no difference qua the contesting respondents in view of the judgment in AIR 1987 SC 2028 and they remain tenant and, thus, it stands proved on record that petitioner is the landlord in respect of all the respondents.
(ii). Now, the question is whether there is any statutory duty casted upon the petitioner company to carry out the redevelopment work at the instance of the Government or the DDA or the MCD in pursuance of the Development Scheme.
(iii). In the petition it has been pleaded that on page-18 of the Master Plan of the Delhi, 1962 the use of the DCM site is quoted as under:-
"The Delhi Cloth Mills have to move out of this congested area to the Extensive Industrial Districts according to the time schedule given for non confirming use. The present site should be developed for flatted factories in gradual stages to relocate the industries now located in Ahata Qidara and other areas."E no. 96/2011 Page 17/22
D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram
(iv). It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the mandatory provision of the Master Plan, the petitioner company decided to put its property to the use provided under the Master Plan and for the said purpose, the property at Bara Hindu Rao area was decided to be constructed for flatted factory purpose and the property at Kishan Ganj area was decided to be constructed for Residential Group Housing Complex in accordance with the land use and for the said purpose, the sanctions were obtained from the Competent Authority.
(v). It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the Full Bench Judgment of Hon'ble High court of Delhi in Civil Writ no. 2687/1986, petitioner company is duty bound to redevelop the area and in the said judgment it was held as under:-
"The petitioner has the right to property and, thus, redevelopment of the DCM site in the flatted factory and residential house. Indeed the petitioner has obligations to redevelop the land and to put the same to such use as is permitted by the provisions of Master Plan."
(vi). It is further contended that the redevelopment is in public interest and is in furtherance of the planned development of the E no. 96/2011 Page 18/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram area where the suit premises are situated.
(vii). On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that there is no statutory duty casted upon the petitioner or that there is any order passed by the Government or by the Competent Authority to redevelop the area and it is the petitioner which is interested in getting the suit premises vacated for its personal benefit, therefore, the petition U/Sec. 14 (1)(l) is not maintainable.
(viii). From the perusal of Resolution number 26 Dated 01/02/1983 that is resolution dated 31/07/1998 itself in the opening lines it is clear that it is the petitioner company who has submitted a scheme for flatted factory and group housing in their plots located at Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj area for issue of no objection and there is nothing on record to suggest that the said scheme was submitted for approval at the instance of any Government or the MCD or DDA.
(ix). Further, the para quoted in the petition of page 18 of the Master Plan, 1962 suggests that it was the mandatory duty upon the petitioner company to shift its business from the said area and it was desirable that petitioner may develop the area for the flatted E no. 96/2011 Page 19/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram factories and for the residential group housing society.
(x). The judgments relied upon by the petitioner company of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the litigation regarding action taken by the MCD/DDA, with due respect were in the context of cancellation of approval granted by the Competent Authority and in none of the judgments, it has been laid down that the petitioner company is bound to carry re-development work at the instance of the government or any other competent authority as provided U/Sec. 14 (1)(l) of the D.R.C. Act.
(xi). Even perusal of the Layout Plan Ex. PW-2/8 makes it clear that Layout Plan was submitted by the petitioner company and the petitioner on its own volunteered for the road widening through its proposal and there was no obligation upon the petitioner company nor any such letter was sent by any competent authority including the government nor any such document has been filed on record to prove that any such compulsion was at the instance of the government and mere submission of the plan on its own by the petitioner company can not be said to be the statutory duty casted at the instance of Government. Even perusal of the condition mentioned in the Layout Plan makes it clear that the approval was granted with the condition that it is DCM who will carry out road E no. 96/2011 Page 20/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram widening etc. on its own.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, it can be safely held that it is the petitioner who on its own wants to redevelop the area and there is no duty casted upon nor the redevelopment work is to be carried out at the instance of the Government or at the instance of any other competent authority and, thus, petitioner has failed to prove this ingredient.
B. The objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that the suit properties do not fall within the area in which the redevelopment work is to be carried out. No counter site plan has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is further admitted case that the Layout Plan is in respect of entire property belonging to the petitioner company and same has been sanctioned for the entire property belonging to the petitioner company and, thus, onus was upon the respondent to prove that the suit property do not fall within the area desired for the redevelopment of the work and respondents have not led any evidence except making bald statement and, thus, it can be safely held that the said objection has been taken without any merit.
E no. 96/2011 Page 21/22D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner has failed to prove the necessary ingredients U/sec. 14 (1) (l) of the D.R.C. Act. on preponderance of probability as petitioner has failed to prove that the redevelopment work is to be done at the instance of any Government or at the instance of any Competent Authority. Petitioner has already withdrawn the grounds of eviction U/sec. 14 (1) (g) of the D.R.C. Act. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs in the circumstances mentioned hereinabove. The judgment be sent to the server (www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in). File be consigned to Record Room after due completion.
Announced in open court on 14th December 2011. Devendra Kr. Sharma A.R.C.(North)/Delhi.
(1+2 separate copies are attached).
E no. 96/2011 Page 22/22 D.C.M . Vs. Sh. Chet Ram E no. 96/2011 D.C.M. VS. SH. CHET RAM 14/12/2011 Present: None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner U/sec. 14 (1) (g) & (l) of the D.R.C. Act. is dismissed. No order as to costs in the circumstances mentioned hereinabove. The judgment be sent to the server (www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in). File be consigned to Record Room after due completion.
Devendra Kr. Sharma A.R.C.(North)/Delhi.14.12.2011 E no. 96/2011 Page 23/22