Delhi District Court
Dcm Limited vs Ganga Devi & Others on 5 May, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL: ARC: CENTRAL:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
E - 409/08
DCM Limited
......Petitioner.
Versus
Ganga Devi & Others
......Respondents.
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application u/o 7 rule 11 CPC moved by the respondents.
2. It is stated in the application that the petitioner is seeking eviction of the respondents u/s 14 (1) (g) and (I) of DRC Act in respect of the shop no. 1, Ganesh Line, Ward no. 16, Double Phatak Road, Near Gaushala Kishan Ganj, Delhi. However, petition deserves rejection straightaway as per provisions contained in order 7 rule 11 CPC interalia as the petitioners have so alleged that they have permission under the Slum Area Act and further that the tenanted premises falls in the Slum Area. But as a matter of fact, the petitioners have no permission in respect of the tenanted premises under the Slum Area Act and are falsely alleging so. It is further stated that the ingredients of section 14 (1)
(g) and (I) of DRC Act have not been revealed by the petitioners E409/08 1/6 and the petition is not covered under the said provisions of law. It is further stated that the petitioners have no cause of action as alleged as per section 14 (8) of DRC Act and the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed in the petition and have no cause of action as per section 20 (1) of DRC Act as the petitioner has not given details of the accommodation which they will provide to the respondent after reconstruction as alleged as petitioners are not constructing the shops and the respondent is a tenant in respect of a shop. It is stated that the petition is misconceived and is not covered within the provisions of section 14 (1) (g) and (I) of DRC Act and have not sought permission under the Slum Area Act. Therefore, it has been prayed that the present petition may be rejected in the interest of justice
3. The petitioner has filed the reply to the application contending that the application is frivolous and it has been filed with ulterior motive to delay the final disposal of the eviction petition which has been filed in the year 1996. It is stated that the evidence of the petitioner has already been concluded long back and thereafter the respondent was given number of opportunities to lead evidence. It is further stated that on one pretext or the other the respondents are taking adjournments. It is further stated that it is a well settled law that for deciding an application u/o 7 rule 11 CPC only the averments made in the petition are to be looked into and the petitioner has already adduced the evidence in support of its case and the respondents have already taken numerous objections against the eviction petition in their written statement and now under the garb of the present false application the respondents want to further delay the petition. The petitioner has prayed for dismissal of the application.
E409/08 2/64. I have heard the Ld. counsel for parties and perused the record carefully.
5. A perusal of the record reveals that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 14 (1) (g) and (L) of DRC Act against the respondent on the ground that suit premises is required bonafidely for the purpose of building/ rebuilding and making substantial additions/ alterations in order to carry out building work in pursuance of an Improvement Scheme/ Development Scheme under the Delhi Master Plan, 1962 as approved by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and said work cannot be carried out by the petitioner without the suit premises being vacated by the respondent and possession handed over to the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that the area where the suit property is located falls in Slum area and permission has been obtained by the petitioner to file the present petition from the Competent Authority (Slum) on 28.08.1995.
6. Now by way of present application the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has not taken permission from the Slum authority as suit property falls in the Slum area. Said objection has also been taken by the respondent in the written statement contending that the premises is situated in the Slum area and no permission has been granted for eviction of the respondent from the premises no. 9406. The petitioner has contended that the property falls in slum area and necessary permission has also been taken from the Competent Authority (Slum) and as such the petitioner has also concluded his evidence and case is proceedings for RE.
7. As the petitioner has alleged that the permission from E409/08 3/6 the slum court has already been taken and on the other hand, the respondent has contended that no permission is taken in respect of the suit premises therefore, these contentions are matter of trial which can be decided after trial of the case as to whether the permission has been taken from slum court and further as to whether the permission obtained by the petitioner for initiating the eviction proceedings from the slum court is in respect of the suit premises or not.
8. So far as the contention of the respondents that necessary ingredients u/s 14 (1) (g) and (l) of DRC Act have not been fulfilled by the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has categorically stated that the suit premises are required for the purpose of building/ rebuilding and making substantial additions/ alterations in order to carry out building work in pursuance of an Improvement Scheme under the Delhi Master Plan, 1962 as approved by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also case of the petitioner that the petitioner has already furnished the lay out plan of the proposed residential complex with the MCD for its approval and on 24.11.89 the MCD has approved the layout plan filed by the petitioner company for the redevelopment of the said property at Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj, Delhi into flatted factories and group housing residential complex but the said work cannot be carried out by the petitioner without the suit premises being vacated by the respondent.
9. So far as the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has not complied section 14 (8) and 20 (1) of DRC Act is concerned, as per section 14 (8) of DRC Act 'no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground E409/08 4/6 specified in clause (g) of the proviso to subsection (I) , unless the Controller is satisfied that the proposed reconstruction will not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let or that such radical alteration is in the public interest; and that the plans and estimates of such reconstruction have been properly prepared and that necessary funds for the purpose are available with the landlord' .
10. Section 20 (1) provides that ' in making any order on the grounds specified in clause (f) or clause (g) of the proviso to sub section (1) of section 14, the controller shall ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the premises or part thereof from which he is to be evicted and if the tenant so elects, shall record the fact of the election in the order and specify therein the date on or before which he shall deliver possession so as to enable the landlord to commence the work of repairs or building or rebuilding, as the case may be.
11. It is a settled law that for deciding the application u/o 7 rule 11 CPC only averments are to be looked into in order to see as to whether the plaint discloses the cause of action. At this stage, the present petition discloses the cause of action against the respondents in view of the averments made in the petition which are to be looked into.
12. So far as the compliance of section 14 (8) and 20 (1) of DRC Act by the petitioner is concerned, parties are still leading their evidence and the respondent is contesting the present case tooth and nail. Therefore, if the petitioner proves ground of eviction u/s 14 (1) (g) and (l) of DRC Act, orders are to be passed keeping in view that the petitioner has complied section 14 (8) as well as 20 (1) of DRC Act. At this stage ,it cannot be said that the E409/08 5/6 petitioner has not complied the provisions as contained in section 14 (8) and 20(1) of DRC Act as case is still proceedings for the respondent evidence and trial is still going on and only after conclusion of the trial, it will be ascertained whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction order u/s 14 (1) (g) and (L) of DRC Act after complying the provisions u/s 14 (8) and 20 (1) of DRC Act.
13. During the course of the arguments, Ld. counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner has not disclosed that which alternative accommodation shall be given to the respondent as required u/s 20 (1) of DRC Act. In my considered opinion, the respondent has not conceded the case of the petitioner and it is yet to be decided whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction order u/s 14 (1) (g) and (L) of DRC Act and only thereafter option is to be exercised u/s 20 (3) of DRC Act and even if the petitioner does not provide alternative accommodation to the respondent, the respondent shall be entitled for compensation under 20 (3)of DRC Act.
14. In view of aforesaid discussions, there is no merit in the present application and same is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the open court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 5th May, 2010 ARC(Central), Delhi
E409/08 6/6
E409/08
05.05.2010
Present: None.
Vide my separate order dictated and announced in the open court, the application u/o 7 rule 11 CPC moved by the respondents is dismissed.
Now, case is fixed for RE for 05.08.2010.
(B.R. Bansal) ARC (Central), Delhi/05.05.2010 E409/08 7/6