Delhi District Court
Gajraj vs Delhi Development Authority Anr on 9 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PREM KUMAR BARTHWAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-003293-2016
PPA No. 15/2016
Shri Gajraj
S/o Shri Roopa
R/o Village Jagatpur,
Delhi. ...Appellant
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
2. Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Estate Officer, North Zone,
Delhi Development Authority,
LSC, LU Block, Pitampura, Delhi ...Respondents
Date of institution : 22.02.2016
Date of arguments : 19.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 09.01.2026
Appearance :
Sh. Vikas Khatri, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Tarun Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent/DDA.
JUDGMENT
1. Appellate jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under provisions of 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as PP Act), against the Order bearing No. EV/B-10/CC/Mukherjee Nagar/03/66 dated Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 PPA No. 15/2016 15:10:34 +0530 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 1 of 20 19.01.2016 whereby the learned Estate Officer/Respondent No. 2 has passed eviction order in respect of Plot No. 10, B-10, CC, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred as "Public Premises").
2. An application under section 9(2) of PP Act r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed alongwith instant appeal to condone 13 days delay in filing the present appeal. In the case of Santosh & Ors. Vs. Shri Tek Chand, 134(2006) DLT 332, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that, "rules of procedure are handmaiden to the end of justice and should not be permitted to effect substantial justice." Keeping in view the fact that the matter ought to be decided on merit and not on technical ground, the circumstances, which have been shown, need to be considered leniently. Taking a liberal view, and in the larger interest of justice, the application for condonation of delay is allowed, and the delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned.
3. The brief facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that the Plot No. B-10, CC, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi was allotted to Shri Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni vide Perpetual Lease Deed dated 18.02.1977 and that basement, ground floor, mezzanine floor and first floor was constructed on the said plot. According to the appellant, the said original allottee had sold the said premises to Shri Leela Nath Maini in 1980 and Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar thereafter the said property was sold and resold to different barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:10:43 +0530 persons. The present appeal was filed by Shri Gajraj who PPA No. 15/2016 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 2 of 20 claimed to have purchased the two shops situated on the ground floor of Plot No. B-10, Commercial Complex, Kingsway Camp North/Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009 from Shri Vijay Kumar Maini in the year 1989. It is submitted that Shri Vijay Kumar Maini is doing the business of property consultant from the above said office in the name and style of Vijay Maini & Co. since the year 1983 and Shri Ashok Sachdeva is doing his work of Income Tax and Sales Tax consultants from the said office at the first floor mezzanine floor of the said Public Premises in the year 2009 from Mr. Marwah and Ms. Marwah. According to the appellant, he purchased two shops situated in the ground floor of public premises from Shri Vijay Kumar Maini in the year 1989 and sale documents i.e. General Power of Attorney and Affidavit etc. dated 11.07.1989 were executed in favour of appellant in respect of above two shops. The appellant Shri Gajraj claimed he never received any notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and the appellant got the knowledge of the impugned order dated 19.01.2016 when the said impugned order was served on the appellant on 22.01.2016.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the grounds amongst other that no show cause notice under section 4 was ever served upon him; no notice or summons under Section 5 was issued for eviction proceedings and the impugned eviction order is passed without granting opportunity of being heard. The appellant is bona fide Digitally signed by purchasers without knowledge of cancellation of lease or pending Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:10:52 +0530 PPA No. 15/2016 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 3 of 20 proceedings. The appellant is the bona-fide purchasers of the above-mentioned two shops situated on the ground floor of the public premises and that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the appellant to file his reply and to contest the proposed eviction from the public premises. It is contended that he was never informed by sellers Shri Vijay Maini that the lease/allotment of the said premises was lying cancelled. It is submitted that the appellant is approaching the DDA for restoration of allotment/lease and for depositing the arrears of ground rent. The appellant has prayed that impugned order dated 19.01.2016 passed by respondent No. 2 be set aside.
5. The respondent No. 1 filed reply to the appeal contending that the present appeal is not maintainable as the appellant is unauthorized occupant and appellant has no locus standi to file the present appeal. It is submitted that the said plot / public premises was purchased by Shri Sita Ram in auction for Rs.40,500/- vide lease deed registered on 18.02.1977. It is further contended that in the year 1992, land came under DDA's control and architectural controls required basement use per byelaws, ground floor for shops, terrace for water reservoir. The misuse was reported regarding basement, mezzanine etc. and multiple show cause notices were issued to allottee between 1989-1993. When no response was received from lessee/allottee then the lease was determined by Lessor/Hon'ble LG on 29.12.1994.
Digitally Thereafter the matter was referred for initiating action against signed by Prem Prem Kumar Kumar barthwal barthwal Date:
2026.01.09 under PP Act vide letter dated 03.03.2003 and the eviction order 15:11:00 +0530 PPA No. 15/2016 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 4 of 20 has been rightly passed against the unauthorized occupants. It is contended that as per the lease condition i.e. Clause 4(a) of the lease given to original allottee/lessee, the same lessee cannot sell/transfer/assign or otherwise part with possession of the whole or any part of the plot except with the previous permission in writing which may be declined or granted with or without conditions. It is further contended that even when the permission is granted, the lessee was bound to pay 50% of unearned increase in the market value of the plot i.e. the difference between the premium paid and the market value at the time of such transfer. The lease further provided that the lessor shall have pre-emptive rights to purchase the property after deducting 50% of the unearned increase.
6. It is further contended that the impugned order was rightly passed as property in question was put to misuse and notices were duly issued regarding the misuse as well as breach of term of the lease by illegal sale. It is contended that the appellant has no locus standi to file the present appeal as appellant was never a party before the Estate Officer. There is no privity of contract with appellant and hence there was no obligation to issue notices or demand ground rent from the appellant and the present appeal is being filed in collusion with the allottees who had committed breach of the terms of the lease. It is further contended that the property was found to be misused for which number of notices were issued and the use of the building has not been done as per the Architectural Control Drawing. The building was to be Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar Kumar barthwal barthwal Date:
PPA No. 15/2016 2026.01.09
15:11:07
Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 5 of 20 +0530
constructed double storeyed, whereas it has been constructed four storeyed with terrace in violations of the Building Permit/ Architectural Drawing. The alleged sale by the allottees is illegal and unauthorized as per lease clause 4(a) and the public premises is being unauthorizedly occupied by the appellant and others. It is further contended that the ground rent of the said public premises has not been deposited and the allotment already stands cancelled by the competent authority.
7. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully.
8. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that notice under Section 4 of the PP Act has not been served upon the appellant. It is further argued that the Estate Office ought to have conducted the inquiry and recorded evidence while following the principles of natural justice. As per Section 8 of the Public Premises Act, the Estate Officer, for the purpose of conducting any inquiry under the Act, is vested with the same powers as those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is argued that in the present case, the impugned order has been passed only on the basis of a reference received from Deputy Director (CL) dated 31.03.2003 to initiate eviction proceedings and neither the said officer sending the reference was examined nor any of the officers/field staff of the DDA who had carried out the inspection and submitted their reports were examined to prove Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal any misuse.
Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09
15:11:17
+0530
PPA No. 15/2016
Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 6 of 20
9. It is further contended that the occupants of the premises had been pursuing their regularization with respondent no. 1/DDA but the Estate Officer did not care about regularization process and passed the impugned eviction order dated 19.01.2016 in a very hasty, mechanical and routine manner without following any due procedure of law and has also violated the principles of Natural Justice which shows the biasness of the Estate Officer and thus the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground also.
10. It is further argued that as per the policy of the respondent/DDA itself, the sale by original allottees can be regularized at the time of conversion of lease hold to free hold and even the ground rent and other dues can also be demanded but no such demand was made from appellant. It is argued that no demand for payment of ground rent has ever been made either from the original allottees or from the present occupants. It is further argued that the Estate Officer has not decided the issue of misuse as per the Auction/Lease conditions and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner and hence, it is liable to be quashed.
11. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/DDA has argued that the present appeal is not maintainable. It is argued that the Ld. Estate Officer's record makes it abundantly clear that the allottee of the property in Prem Digitally signed by Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
question was duly served as per the requirement of Section 4 of barthwal 2026.01.09 15:11:22 +0530 the PP Act.PPA No. 15/2016
Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 7 of 20
12. It is further contended that the premises in question has been misused by the occupants as the common wall of the mezzanine floor of Plot No. B-9 and B-10 was removed and the said mezzanine floor was given on rent to Bank of Maharashtra and that no ground rent for the period of 20.07.1979 to 14.07.1993 was paid and the original allottee had indulged in sale of the public premises without prior permission of the lessor and hence the lease deed was cancelled by the Hon'ble LG who is also Chairman of DDA. Unless the lease is restored, the occupants are to be considered unauthorized occupants and the allottees/occupants are also able to pay misuse charges/occupation charges for the entire period of unauthorized occupation of public premises. In support of his contention, Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 1 has referred to the cases of DDA Vs Anant Raj Industries Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 11 SCC 406. It is further argued that the misuse has not been removed and occupants have not paid the other charges such as ground rent, interest, unearned increase etc. and, as such, the appellant is not entitled to any relief from this court. The appellant has no locus standi to file the present appeal as the person from whom he claims to have purchased the property had no right, title or interest. It is contended that the Ld. Estate Officer/DDA has passed the impugned Order dated 19.01.2016 as per law after hearing both the parties and the appellant has no case at all.
Digitally
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled, S.S. Con- Prem signed by Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 Build Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority 2023: DHC: 15:11:29 +0530 PPA No. 15/2016 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 8 of 20 3092 has discussed the relevant provisions regarding PP Act and has reiterated the following observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in UOI & Anr. Vs. Mahender Pratap Soni & Ors., MANU/DE/1035/2016 :-
"11. It is unfortunate that inspite of the Constitution Bench in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. supra and the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Ambitious Gold Nib Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd. supra and inspite of the attention of the counsels for the respondents having been drawn thereto, the counsel for the respondents in their respective written submissions continue to harp upon the Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. supra.
12. It is now settled law:
(i) that the correctness or otherwise of the allegations of public authorities such as the petitioner L&DO or the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on the basis of which determination of lease is effected is to be decided by the Estate Officer under the PP Act.
(ii) that whether the lessee has committed breach of the terms of the lease deed or not and whether the determination of the lease was legal or not are matters to be adjudicated by the concerned authority under the PP Act i.e. the Estate Officer and cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the public authorities as the L&DO or the DDA cannot be asked to resort to the civil suit instead of the PP Act for eviction of the occupants even if an ex-lessee after the lease has been determined;
(iii) that the observations of the Supreme Court in Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. supra that the public authority as the L&DO and the DDA is required to file a civil suit and the proceedings under the PP Act are not maintainable is not good law;
(iv) that merely because the Estate Officer under the PP Act is not required to be a person well versed in law cannot be a ground for excluding from the ambit of PP Act the premises in unauthorized occupation of persons who had obtained possession Digitally signed by Prem as lessee; Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar barthwal Date:
2026.01.09 15:11:37 +0530 PPA No. 15/2016 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 9 of 20
(v) that a combined reading of Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the PP Act shows that final order that is passed in the proceedings under the PP Act is by the judicial officer of the rank of a District Judge; the same also suggests that questions as to justification for determination of lease fall within the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer."
14. It is not disputed that the lease dated 18.02.1977 was issued in favour of Shri Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni. Admittedly, the original allottees have sold the said premises and the same has been further sold by sub-dividing and in portions to various persons. Perusal of the lease deed shows that Clause 2 and 3(a) of the Lease Deed reads as under :-
2. The LESSEE shall not deviate in any manner whatsoever from the layout plan nor alter the size of the plot whether by sub-
division, amalgation or otherwise, unless specifically peremitted to do so by the LESSOR.
3(a) The Lessee shall, within a period of three years, from the date hereof which period shall be essence of the contract, erect upon the plot and complete in a substantial and workman-like manner a commercial building in accordance with the ty pe, design and other architectural requirements prescribed by the LESSOR or its commissioner after obtaining the necessary sanction there for and in accordance with the sanctioned building plan and municipal building bye-laws and also provide prospersewers and drains and other conveniences in accordance with the sanctioned building plan and to the satisfaction of the municipal and other authorities appointed under the law.
Further the Clause 4(a) of the Lease Deed postulated as under :-
4(a) The LESSEE shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the plot before or after erection of building hereon except with the previous permission in writing of the LESSOR or its Commissioner which Digitally may be declined or granted with or without conditions.
signed by
Prem Prem Kumar
barthwal
Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09
15:11:43
+0530
PPA No. 15/2016
Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 10 of 20
15. The lease in favour of original allottees Shri Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni has been cancelled on 19.05.1994 by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor for the reasons of violations of terms and conditions of allotment as the lessee sold the plot illegally and the basement, mezzanine floor and ground floor were being misused and also for not paying the ground rent.
16. The case of the appellant is that plot No. 10, B Block, Community Centre, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Kingsway Camp North, Delhi was allotted to Sh. Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni vide Perpetual Lease deed dt. 18.02.1977 and thereafter, the same was sold and resold to different purchasers. The appellant claims to have acquired ownership vide Agreement to Sell signed by Shri Vijay Maini S/o Shri Leela Nath Maini in respect of two shops situated on the ground floor of plot No. 10, B-Block, Community Centre, Kingsway Camp, North, Delhi.
Clause 4 (a) of said Perpetual Lease Deed says that "The LESSEE shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the plot before or after erection of the building thereon except with the previous permission in writing of the LESSOR or its Commissioner, which may be declined or granted with or without conditions.". The appellant himself has admitted that the mezzanine floor of the public was leased to Bank of Maharashtra. A perusal of the Lease Agreement dated 23.03.2002 filed on record of the Estate Officer reveals that Bank of Maharashtra required approximately 2000 Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar Kumar barthwal PPA No. 15/2016 barthwal Date:
2026.01.09 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 11 of 20 15:11:49 +0530 Sq. ft. for its banking purposes and the lessor (Mrs. Meenakshi Marwah and Mrs. Saroj Marwah) agreed to remove the common wall of the Mezzanine floor of B-9 and B-10. A reply on behalf of Bank of Maharasthra claiming to be lessee of premises admeasuring 2000 Sq. ft (Carpet area of the mezzanine floor of building known as B-9/B-10, situated at Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-9) taken from Ms. Saroj Marwah has also been filed on record of the Estate Officer. Thus, the mezzanine floor under occupation of Bank of Maharashtra was clearly put to misuse by the allottee/occupant. Perusal of the record of the Estate Officer also shows that in the proceedings dated 07.04.2008 the Estate Officer recorded that notices were earlier issued to the lessee i.e original allottee only but there are other affected persons/parties at all the floors and hence notices were directed to be issued to the affected parties and the notices were also directed to be pasted at the main gate of the building as well as gates of each floor. Thereafter on the next date of hearing i.e. on 07.05.2008, official from Bank of Maharashtra (occupying the basement and mezzanine floor) as well as few other occupants appeared before the Estate Officer and were directed to submit their reply to the show cause notice. Sub-section 4(3) of PP Act specifically deals with the deemed service of notice by affixing it to the premises, which makes the notice legally effective for all concerned persons, even if they don't personally receive it. Section 4(3) of PP Act postulates as under :-
"(3)The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous Digitally signed by part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar barthwal Date:
PPA No. 15/2016 2026.01.09
15:11:57
Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 12 of 20 +0530
prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned."
17. Perusal of above referred Section 4(3) reveals that the Estate Officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. This Sub-section mentions 'whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been given to all persons concerned. The proceedings of Estate Officer dated 07.04.2008 and 07.05.2008 clearly establish that the compliance of Section 4(3) of PP Act was done by the Estate Officer as officials from Bank of Maharashtra and other occupants had appeared pursuant to the service/affixation of the show cause notices dated 11.04.2008. The said notices were duly received/acknowledged by the officials of Bank of Maharashtra and were received even by other occupants namely M/s Chaudhary Properties; Shri Ashok Sachdeva, Advocate and the notices were even affixed at the premises on the ground floor shop of M/s Bajaj Medicos and other occupants such as Expert Academy, Scenario IAS Academy. Reply on behalf of the Bank of Maharashtra as well as M/s Euronet Services Pvt. Ltd. and Smt. Saroj Marwah has also been filed on record of the Estate Officer. Call letters/notices for 30.07.2008, 02.04.2014, 10.06.2014, 08.12.2014, 31.07.2015 etc. were duly received/served upon the appellant. In proceedings dated 05.08.2014, presence of Raju Chaudhary S/o Gajraj Singh on behalf of M/s Chaudhary Gajraj (Sham General Store) and Prem Digitally signed by Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:12:05 PPA No. 15/2016 +0530 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 13 of 20 Shri Sushil Rana on behalf of Chaudhary Properties (Ground Floor) are recorded. Thus, there is no merit in the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that no notice was served upon the appellant. In the considered opinion of this court, notice dated 11.04.2008 under Sub section 1 and Clause (b-2) of Sub Section 2 of Section 4 of the PP Act were duly served by the Estate Officer upon all the persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who were or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises in question. Pertinently, even a counsel Ms. Shubda Khosla had filed her vakalatnama dated 21.01.2009 on behalf of the occupant/Bank of Maharashtra. A reply on behalf of Bank of Maharasthra claiming to be lessee of premises admeasuring 2000 Sq. ft (Carpet area of the mezzanine floor of building known as B-9/B-10, situated at Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-9) taken from Ms. Saroj Marwah has also been filed on record of the Estate Officer. The said occupant i.e. Bank of Maharashtra had also challenged the impugned order vide separate appeal bearing PPA No. 10/2016 titled Bank of Maharasthra Vs. Estate Officer/DDA, but the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.05.2022. The documents of the appellant i.e. agreement to sell etc. executed in favour of the appellant Shri Harish Chanana do not confer any right, title or interest in his favour as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2009 (7) SCC 363 where it has been held that a transaction involving the sale or transfer of property requires a sale deed, which must be registered under the Indian Registration Act, of Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar Kumar barthwal barthwal Date:
2026.01.09 15:12:14 PPA No. 15/2016 +0530 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 14 of 20 1908. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Suraj Lamp & Industries Vs. State of Haryana' is prospective and transaction, being subject-matter of present case is prior to date of said judgment but the said contention has no merit. In Anuj Sharma vs Amit Sharma, Neutral citation 2023:DHC:4589, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has referred to judgment of Suraj lamps (supra) and held that, "it is trite that transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a Deed of Conveyance/Sale Deed, duly stamped and registered as required by law and in the absence of this, no right, title or interest can be transferred in an immovable property." In Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (Neutral Citiation : 2023 INSC 1016), it was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Thus, the appellant had no legal right or valid authority to occupy the public premises on the basis of his agreement to sell. The original allottee/lessee Shri Sita Ram Sahini and Smt. Suman Sahni have not challenged the order of determination or cancellation of their lease by competent authority and thus, said lease was never restored and the misuser of the mezzanine floor continued even during the Digitally proceedings before the Estate Officer. After cancellation of the signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09
15:12:23
+0530
PPA No. 15/2016
Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 15 of 20
lease deed, the original allottee as well as anybody claiming through the said allottee became unauthorized occupants of the public premises in question.
18. In the case of DDA v Parsu Ram and Ors., 2007 (96) DRJ 548, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows:
"3. This understanding of the learned Additional District Judge in respect of the ratio of Express Newspapers (supra) is clearly incorrect. The position has been clarified by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Delhi Development Authority v.
Ambitious Gold Nib Manufacturing (P) Ltd. LPA No. 976/2004 dated 21.2.2006 After examining the decisions in Express Newspapers (supra) and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 406 in some detail, the Division Bench concluded as under:
10. Thus in Express Newspapers case itself the Supreme Court has clarified that it has not held that the Government does not have the power to take action under the Public Premises Act where admittedly there is unauthorized construction by a lessee or by any other person on Government land and such person is in unauthorized occupation thereof.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
13. Thus the Supreme Court has clearly observed that the second part of the definition of unauthorized occupation in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act expressly covers continuance in occupation by any person of public premises after the authority under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. In the present case, it is alleged by the DDA that on account of violations of the terms of the lease deed, the DDA has determined the lease of the writ petitioner. We are not going into the correctness or otherwise of these allegations of the DDA as that will be decided by the authority under the Public Premises Act but we are certainly of the opinion that it would be pre- mature to entertain such a writ petition at this stage.
14. It is open to the writ petitioner to appear before the authority under the Public Premises Act and contend that it had not committed any breach of the terms of the lease deed; that there was no determination of the lease deed, etc. These are matters to be adjudicated by the concerned authority under the Public Premises Act and we would not like to deal with them. Suffice it to say that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in writ Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:12:29 PPA No. 15/2016 +0530 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 16 of 20 jurisdiction. The allegation of the DDA was that it had determined the lease deed for breach of the conditions of the lease deed and, in our opinion, this allegation gives sufficient jurisdiction to the authority under the Public Premises Act to proceed with the hearing of the matter before it and adjudicate all these questions.
15. The writ appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4th August, 2004 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the writ petitioner to raise the questions mentioned above, that is, whether there was any violation of the lease deed, whether there was any valid determination of the lease deed, etc. before the authority under the Public Premises Act who will deal with these contentions and decide the same expeditiously after hearing the parties concerned in accordance with law."
19. In the considered opinion of this court, it was for the unauthorized occupants of the premises to show that there is no breach of the terms of the lease deed or that there was no misuser and that their occupation of the public premises was valid, legal, justified or authorized. The proceedings dated 05.08.2014 before the Estate Officer record that the occupants have failed to furnish any documentary evidence in support of their ownership and no efforts have been made for restoration of the lease deed nor any dues/amount towards misuser etc. has been deposited with DDA.
No documents regarding payment of any unearned increase, misuser charges, ground rent etc. has been filed or placed on record of Estate Officer or this court. In case titled as DDA vs. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 3783 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.6978 of 2012) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 12.04.2016, wherein it is held as under:
..."34. The original lessee has been in unauthorised occupation of the property in question for around 30 years (till he executed a Digitally signed by Prem Kumar Prem barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:12:36 PPA No. 15/2016 +0530 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 17 of 20 sale deed in favour of the respondent) and the respondent has been illegally inducted in possession of the same, by the original lessee, who himself was in unauthorised possession of the property. For around 17 years the respondent has been enjoying the property in question without any right, title or interest. Thus, both are liable to pay the damages for unauthorised occupation and the DDA is empowered under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to claim damages from them. We record this finding in exercise of our appellate power in view of our finding and reasons assigned in this judgment holding that the concurrent finding is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law in granting decree of permanent injunction in favour of the respondent who is not entitled in law for the same. There is a miscarriage of justice in granting the relief by the courts below in favour of the respondent. Further, keeping in view the public interest involved in this case and particularly having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we have to allow this appeal of the DDA. Since we have answered the points framed in this appeal in favour of the appellant-DDA, we further, direct the DDA to take possession of the property immediately without resorting to eviction proceedings, as the respondent has been in unauthorised possession of the property in question, by virtue of erroneous judgments passed by the courts below. The respondent has been unlawfully enjoying the public property which would amount to unlawful enrichment which is against the public interest.
35. For the aforesaid reasons this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court affirming the judgments and decrees of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court in RCA No. 75 of 1982 and OS No. 47 of 1975 respectively, is hereby set aside. Accordingly, We pass the following order-
A. The DDA is allowed to take the possession of the property in question immediately and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the DD Act read with the relevant Rules in favour of an eligible applicant by conducting public auction, if it intends to dispose of the property.
B. The DDA is entitled for the recovery of damages from both, the original lessee or his legal heirs and the respondent, for the period of their unauthorised occupation of the property at the market rate prevalent in the area.
C. The amount which has been deposited, with the DDA, by the respondent as conversion charges is to be adjusted towards the damages that may be determined by the DDA in accordance with law.
D. The costs of Rs.1 lakh is awarded to the DDA, payable by Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar the respondent for these proceedings." Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:12:44 +0530 PPA No. 15/2016 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 18 of 20
20. Keeping in view the above discussion and in the considered opinion of this court, once the lease in favour of allottees Shri Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni had been rightly cancelled on 19.05.1994 by the competent authority/Hon'ble LG due to contravention of the terms of lease deed i.e. sale without prior permission and misuse of the mezzanine floor etc., the possession of the allottees i.e. Shri Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni in respect of public premises bearing Plot No. B-10, CC, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi became unauthorized after cancellation and they are liable to be evicted under provisions of Public Premises Act. The occupants have failed to justify their occupation of the public premises after cancellation of the lease which has been rightly terminated by the competent authority i.e. Hon'ble LG due to breach of terms of the lease deed particularly sale without prior permission, misuser of mezzanine floor and non-payment of the rental dues. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the original allottee did not even care to pay the yearly rent as per the lease terms or violated the terms of the lease by selling the public premises in a clandestine manner without seeking prior approval from the concerned authorities. Exercising the power conferred under the Act, the Estate Officer has rightly passed the impugned eviction order in respect of property/plot No. B-10, CC, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and this court does not find any infirmity or illegality committed by the Estate Officer while passing the impugned order dated 19.01.2016. There is no merit in the instant Digitally signed by Prem appeal and same is hereby dismissed. Copy of order along with Prem Kumar Kumar barthwal barthwal Date:
2026.01.09 15:12:50 +0530 PPA No. 15/2016 Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 19 of 20 file of Estate Officer be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09
Announced in the open court 15:12:57
+0530
today i.e.9th day of January, 2026
(PREM KUMAR BARTHWAL)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi.PPA No. 15/2016
Gajraj Vs. DDA & Anr. Page No. 20 of 20