Delhi District Court
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Amandeep Singh on 14 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MR. SANJAY GARG-I
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
PPA No. 11/2023
CNR No. DLND01-01424-2023
New Delhi Municipal Council
Estate-I Department, 5th Floor,
Palika Kendra,
New Delhi-110001 ...... Appellant
Versus
Sh. Amandeep Singh
S/o. Sh. Rajinder Singh
R/o. 7/25, Second Floor,
East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 ...... Respondent
Date of institution : 27.05.2023
Date of hearing arguments : 22.12.2023
Date of order : 14.02.2024
Appearances:
Sh. Jasman Singh Sethi, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Swaranjeet Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. The order impugned in this case is dated 08.02.2023 passed by Sh. R.P. Sati, Estate Officer, NDMC whereby the petition filed by the appellant U/s. 5 and 7 of The Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 was dismissed.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Brief conspectus of the case as elaborated in appeal are that the premises in question i.e. Shop No.13, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi is a PPA No.11/2023 New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Amandeep Singh Page 1 of 8 "Public Premises" according to Section 2(e) of The Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 and is owned by the appellant and on the basis of a License Deed dated 26.12.1997 it was let out by the appellant to Mr. Hardeep Singh & Mr. Gurvinder Singh for carrying out trade of Travel Agency for a period of 05 (five) years with effect from 01.03.1995 to 28.02.2000 and was further renewed on 19.09.2000 with effect from 29.02.2000 to 28.02.2010. It is mentioned that on 15.05.2002, Mr. Hardeep Singh and Mr. Gurvinder Singh entered into a partnership with the respondent vide Partnership Deed dated 15.05.2002 and such partnership was subsequently dissolved vide Dissolution Deed dated 02.07.2002. The respondent vide letter dated 06.09.2002 requested the Director (Estate-I), NDMC for transfer/regularize the said shop in his name and the Director (Estate) vide letter dated 23.09.2002, enquired from Mr. Hardeep Singh and Mr. Gurvinder Singh about their confirmation for transferring/regularizing the premises in favour of the respondent and vide letters dated 03.10.2002 and 04.10.2002, Mr. Hardeep Singh and Mr. Gurvinder Singh confirmed to the request made by the respondent and gave no objection to the same. While considering the aforementioned request of the respondent, the Deputy Director (Estate-I) sent a letter dated 05.12.2002 thereby requesting him to submit the relevant documents for transfer/regularization of the premises. On submission of the requisite documents by the respondent, the appellant executed a License Deed dated 20.12.2002 for a period with effect from 15.05.2002 to 28.02.2002 for carrying out the trade of Travel Agency (Booking of Air Tickets).
3. The appellant sent a show cause notice dated 29.11.2005 to the respondent for unauthorized construction in respect to the premises which inter-alia recorded, "you have been encroaching the municipal land by PPA No.11/2023 New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Amandeep Singh Page 2 of 8 extending the width of the front portion about 2½ feet by providing glass gates." On 17.04.2006, the appellant sent another show cause notice to the respondent for unauthorized construction in respect to the premises mentioning that, "you have been encroaching the municipal land by :
i. Water dispenser Machine
ii. Inverter
iii. Trolly
iv. Chairs
v. Some additional area has been found covered by putting glass door
unauthorisedly.
vi. A wooden Cabin".
4. On 14.11.2006, another show cause notice was sent to the respondent for unauthorized construction in respect of the premises mentioning that, "some additional area has been found covered by putting glass door unauthorisedly." On 26.07.2007, the appellant again sent a show cause notice to the respondent for unauthorized construction in respect of the premises mentioning that, "as per the inspection carried out on 22.06.2007, encroachment by additional door." On 02.12.2009, the appellant sent another show cause notice mentioning about the unauthorized encroachment by the respondent which recorded, "that you have been encroaching the municipal land by laying a carpet, three chairs, fridge, etc in the public premises in front of your shop." Again on 09.02.2019, appellant sent a notice to the respondent mentioning that, "the License Deed dated 20.12.2002 is lying ipso facto determined and the respondent is liable to be evicted as there was no request for renewal." On 23.02.2012, respondent made a renewal request along with a supporting affidavit mentioning that he has not breached the terms of the License Deed dated 20.12.2002 and vide letter dated 06.07.2017, the appellant allowed request of the respondent and License Deed dated 11.07.2017 was executed PPA No.11/2023 New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Amandeep Singh Page 3 of 8 between the appellant and respondent with effect from 01.03.2013 to 31.03.2023 for carrying the trade of Travel Agency (Booking of Air Ticket).
5. It is further mentioned that Clause 1 of the said License Deed specified the nature and period of the license as follows :
"9. That the licensee shall not permit the alloted premises or any part thereof to be used by any other person for any purpose whatsoever without the previous consent in writing of the licensor and in default thereof shall be liable for ejectment."
"10. That the licensee shall not carry out any additions and alterations to the building. If any additions/alterations are required by the licensee a request to this effect shall be made in writing to the licensor who may consider the same on the terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate."
"32. That breach of any of these conditions will make the license liable to cancellation with immediate effect."
6. It is further mentioned that on 27.12.2019, appellant received a notice U/s.91 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.137/2018 dated 31.12.2018, PS Connaught Place for submitting the documents of the subject premises. On inspection of the premises on 05.10.2021 by the officials of the appellant, it was found that the respondent has grossly violated the terms of the License Deed dated 11.07.2017 and relevant observations made in inspection report are as follows :
i. One Sh. Rahul was found present who refused to show his identity proof; ii. Trade under the name and style of "Trade O Dreams" was found running ; & iii. Size of the shop was extended beyond its original size.
7. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice dated 18.11.2021 was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the premises should not be sealed for violation of the terms of the License Deed. It is further alleged that as respondent failed to accept the Show Cause Notice, NDMC officials PPA No.11/2023 New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Amandeep Singh Page 4 of 8 were constrained to paste the same on his premises and reply to it was given by respondent on 25.11.2021 and after examining it, the appellant was of the considered view that area outside the shop has been merged inside the shop. In view of the violations, the appellant passed the sealing order dated 31.01.2022 and thereafter premises was got sealed. Additionally, NDMC issued a Cancellation Notice dated 03.06.2022 regarding cancellation of license of Shop No.13, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi and respondent was directed to handover the peaceful possession of the said shop and pay the cancellation charges along with interest of defaulted payment.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
8. One of the ground raised in this appeal is that the Estate Officer completely ignored the fact regarding registration of FIR No. 137/2018 dated 31.12.2018, PS Connaught Place, New Delhi against the occupants of the premises other than license holder running the business in a different style and name and it meticulously establishes its sub-letting. It is alleged that as the respondent was completely unaware of the said FIR, it shows the extent of their involvement in the premises due to its sub-letting. Had the premises would have been in possession of the respondent, he would have automatically known about the registration of FIR. It is further alleged that in his written statement before the Estate Officer, there is admission on behalf of respondent that he undertook structural changes in the subject premises and relevant para is reproduced as under :
"11. The respondent in his reply dated 25.11.2021 stated that he had only created a temporary space outside the subject premises for placing of an inverter and he duly undertook to remove the same immediately. It is humbly submitted that the respondent did not violate any of the terms of the license deed as alleged therein and PPA No.11/2023 New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Amandeep Singh Page 5 of 8 respondent immediately removed the aforesaid temporary structure".
9. It is further alleged that the structural changes/unauthorized construction are permanent in nature as visible in the photographs which were taken at the time of inspection. The order passed by the Estate Officer is perverse as on one hand it has made observations about de-sealing of the property and on the other hand, directions are passed to consider the case of the respondent for de-sealing.
ARGUMENTS
10. Heard the arguments of Sh. Jasman Singh Sethi, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Swaranjeet Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Perused the record on this file as well as file of the Estate Officer. DECISION
11. One of the main contention raised on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the said Estate Officer ignored the fact regarding registration of FIR No. 137 of 2018 dated 31.12.2018 PS Connaught Place, New Delhi against the occupants of the premises which establishes sub- letting. It has been stated that as the respondent was completely unaware of the said FIR, it shows extent of their non involvement in the premises due to sub-letting. Had the premises been in possession of the respondent, he would have automatically known about the registration of the FIR. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent has no concern with the said FIR and same stands admitted by Sh. Ganga Ram, Deputy Director, Estate-I, NDMC, during his cross examination.
12. Perusal of the record of Estate Officer reveal copy of the FIR as Ex.PW1/19 which is U/s.420, 120B IPC and accused named are Ms. Shreya Roy and Mr. Kartik Chawla. The premises mentioned in the PPA No.11/2023 New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Amandeep Singh Page 6 of 8 complaint is the suit premises where allegedly as per the complaint he was cheated by these accused persons namely Ms. Shreya Roy and Mr. Kartik Chawla. The Estate Officer could have called the report from the concerned Police Station to establish the role of alleged accused Ms. Shreya Roy and Mr. Kartik Chawla with the suit premises i.e. Shop No.13, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi but no such effort was made by the Estate Officer. Merely from this FIR, it can't be concluded that the suit premises was rent out unauthorizedly by the respondent to Ms. Shreya Roy and Mr. Kartik Chawla.
13. Other contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that in his written statement before the Estate Officer, there is admission on behalf of respondent that he had undertaken structural changes in the premises. It is stated that this establishes the violation of the terms of deed of license but Estate Officer failed to take notice of this admission. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has stated that there is no such admission, in his reply to the show cause notice. He has only stated that they have created a temporary space for placing an inverter and had undertaken to remove the same immediately. It is stated that there is no such extension of the shop as alleged by the appellant.
14. Ex.PW1/20 is the inspection report which contains three observations made by the inspection team pertaining to the suit premises. The same are as follows :
Shop No. 13, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi
i) One Sh. Rahul was found present who refused to show his identify proof.
ii) Trade under the name and style of "Travel o Dreams" was found running.
iii) Size of the shop was extended beyond its original size.PPA No.11/2023 New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Amandeep Singh Page 7 of 8
15. What was the extension found by the inspection team on the suit premises at the time of the inspection was required to be elaborated. Sh. Ganga Ram, Deputy Director, Estate -I during his cross examination has admitted that photographs showing unauthorized construction are not annexed with the petition. Thereby, the Estate Officer has rightly observed that the appellant has failed to show the extension of the original size of the shop of the respondent.
16. Now coming to the reply and evidence led by respondent before the Estate Officer. Record of the Estate Officer has only cross- examination of the respondent without there being any examination-in- chief or evidence affidavit on record. What procedure was followed by the Estate Officer only he knows better. During his cross-examination, respondent named name of his firm as "Travel o Dreams". In reply to another question, he has named Rahul and Dilshant as the employees who were working during the relevant period. Regarding FIR No.137/2018, respondent has clearly replied that he is not aware about this FIR and the persons named in the FIR namely Mr. Kartik Chawla and Ms. Shreya Roy were not his employees. In reply to a specific question respondent has answered that Rahul was his employee in the month of October, 2021.
17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, no substance is found in the various grounds of appeal raised by appellant. Appeal is thereby dismissed. Trial court record be sent back along with copy of this order. File be consigned to record room.
SANJAY Digitally signed by
SANJAY GARG - I
GARG - I Date: 2024.02.14
16:11:20 +0530
Announced in the open court (Sanjay Garg-I)
th
on 14 February, 2024 Principal District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts/ND/14.02.2024(mc)
PPA No.11/2023 New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Amandeep Singh Page 8 of 8