Delhi District Court
Unknown vs Delhi Development Authority on 8 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
PPA No. 06/2017
1. SHRI VINEET GARG S/o SHRI KRISHAN PRAKASH GARG
FLAT No. 203, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
2. SONU GUPTA S/o LATE OM PRAKASH GUPTA
FLAT No. B3, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
3. RAKESH GUPTA S/o LATE OM PRAKASH GUPTA
FLAT No. B3, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
4. SANJEEV BAJAJ S/o LATE R.L. BAJAJ
FLAT No. 109, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
5. RAJEEV BAJAJ S/O LATE R.L. BAJAJ
FLAT NO. 109, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
6. MRS. SHAKSHI ARORA W/o SHRI SURESH ARORA
FLAT No. 201A, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
7. MEENAKSI MITTAL W/o SHRI SUNIL MITTAL
FLAT No. 207, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
8. SUNIL MITTAL S/o SHRI SHADI RAM MITTAL
FLAT No. 207, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 1 of 27 pages
9. RAMESH WATTAL S/o D.N. WATTAL
DIRECTOR M/s WELCOME DESTINATION PVT. LTD.
FLAT No. 207&208, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
10. RAKESH KULLAR S/o SHRI SATYA PAL KULLAR
DIRECTOR M/s PIONEER DIGITAL PVT. LTD.
FLAT No. 306, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
11. SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN S/o SHRI BABU RAM JAIN
FLAT No. 308, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
12. RAJNI GOYAL W/o SHRI SANJEEV GOYAL
FLAT No. 309, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
13. SHRI SANJEEV GOYAL S/o LATE SHRI RAK KUMAR
FLAT No. 309, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
14. Mrs. SHIVANI TULI D/o CAPT. S.K. TULI
FLAT No. 401A, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
15. Ms. PUJA TULI D/o CAPT. S.K. TULI
FLAT No. 401A, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
16. Mrs. KANCHAN TULI W/o CAPT. S.K. TULI
FLAT No. 401A, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 2 of 27 pages
17. UMA DIWAN W/o SHRI C.K. DIWAN
FLAT No. 502, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
18. SANJANA BAHL W/o SHRI VIJAY BAHL
FLAT No. 112, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
2. ESTATE OFFICER
SEZ, C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 27.02.2017
First date before this court : 11.07.2017
Arguments concluded on : 22.09.2017
Date of Decision : 08.10.2018
Appearance: Shri Ashish Garg, counsel for appellant
Ms. Promila Kapoor, counsel for respondent
PPA No. 24/2017
1. H.S. PASHRICHA S/o LATE SHRI G.S. PASHRICHA
FLAT No. G4, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
2. RANJIT SINGH SAMBI S/o AVTAR SINGH RAGI
FLAT No. 106(FF), SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 3 of 27 pages
3. COL. HARINDER SINGH SAHI
S/o LATE CDR ARJAN SINGH SAHI
FLAT No. 201 (SF), SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
4. M/s STELLAR INFORMATION SYSTEM PVT. LTD.
THROUGH SHRI MANOJ DHINGRA, DIRECTOR
S/o SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH DHINGRA
FLAT No. 205(SF), 506(5TH) SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
5. ASHOK SHARMA S/o LATE SHRI KESHAV DUTT SHARMA
FLAT No. 402, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
6. R.N. SHARMA THROUGH GPA
CAPT. PRADEEP SHARMA
S/o COL. R.N. SHARMA
FLAT No. 404 (04TH) SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
7. Capt. PRADEEP SHARMA
S/o COL. R.N. SHARMA
FLAT No. 404 (04TH) SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
8. M/s SEARS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
THROUGH Mrs RAJANI AGGARWAL, DIRECTOR
FLAT No. 407 (04TH) SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
9. M/s SURYA HEATING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.
THROUGH SHRI DINESH PARAKH (A.R.)
S/o LATE SHRI GULAB CHAND PARAKH
FLAT No. 409 (04TH) & 501 (5TH) SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 4 of 27 pages
10. M/s TECHNO ELECTRICT & ENGG. CO. LTD.
THROUGH SHRI DINESH PARAKH (A.R.)
S/o LATE SHRI GULAB CHAND PARAKH
FLAT No. 504 (05TH) SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
2. ESTATE OFFICER
SEZ, C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 10.07.2017
First date before this court : 11.07.2017
Arguments concluded on : 22.09.2018
Date of Decision : 08.10.2018
Appearance: Shri Ashish Garg, counsel for appellant
Ms. Promila Kapoor, counsel for respondent
PPA No. 26/2017
1. GAURI SHANKAR MADAN (DECEASED) BY LR'S
RAVINDER MADAN
OWNER OF FLAT No. G6, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
2. D. CHANDRAKANT S/o SHRI DHARAMRAJ MAURYA,
OWNER OF FLAT No. B1B, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 5 of 27 pages
3. RAJ KUMAR S/o SHRI MANOHAR LAL
OWNER OF FLAT No. B2, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
4. SANJAY ROHTGI S/o LATE SHRI BAL KRISHAN ROHTGI,
OWNER OF FLAT No. B4, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
5. Mrs. VANDANA KUMARI W/o SHRI RAVI KANT MAURYA
OWNER OF FLAT No. G1, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
6. Mrs. NEEL KAMAL W/o SHRI SHRIKANT MAURYA
OWNER OF FLAT No. G1, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
7. DIGMBER SINGH BISHT S/o SHRI LAXMI SINGH BISHT
OWNER OF FLAT No. G3, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
8. SURJIT SINGH S/o SHRI ISHAR SINGH
OWNER OF FLAT No. G77A, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
9. ASHOK KUMAR S/o SHRI RAM PRAKASH AHUJA,
OWNER OF FLAT No. G8, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
10. VIKAS SHARMA S/o LATE SHRI O.P. SHARMA
OWNER OF FLAT No. G9, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
11. D. RAMAKANT S/o SHRI DHARAMRAJ MAURYA
OWNER OF FLAT No. G10, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 6 of 27 pages
12. Mrs. SUKHDEV KAUR SAMBI
W/o SHRI SURINDER SINGH SAMBI
OWNER OF FLAT No. 103, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
13. SHIV KUMAR S/o LATE SHRI M.L. GUPTA
OWNER OF FLAT No. 110A, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
14. Mrs. RACHANA KHANNA w/O SHRI SUBIR TARA SINGH
OWNER OF FLAT No. 202A, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
15. Mrs BHAWANA KHANNA W/o SHRI NITIN CHANANI
OWNER OF FLAT No. 202A, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
16. VIPIN KUMAR OBEROI S/o LATE SHRI TILAK RAJ OBEROI
OWNER OF FLAT No. 204 & 503, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
17. Mrs. VIJAY OBEROI S/o VIPIN KUMAR OBEROI
OWNER OF FLAT No. 204 & 503, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
18. DEEPAK SINGH S/o LATE SHRI RAM NARAYAN SINGH
OWNER OF FLAT No. 307, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
19. Mrs. MANJU SINGH W/o SHRI DEEPAK SINGH
OWNER OF FLAT No. 307, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 7 of 27 pages
20. Mrs. NIKKA GILL
S/o SHRI GURPREET SINGH GILL
OWNER OF FLAT No. 508 & 509, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
21. Mrs. ANGAT SINGH GILL S/o SHRI GURPREET SINGH GILL
OWNER OF FLAT No. 508 & 509, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
22. Mr. ARJUN SINGH GILL S/o SHRI GURPREET SINGH GILL
OWNER OF FLAT No. 508 & 509, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
23. Mrs. RAMINDER DHILLON W/o GP CAPT. S.K. DHILLON
OWNER OF FLAT No. 405, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
24. Mr. MUKUL KUMAR AHUJA
S/o LATE SHRI SUBHASH AHUJA
OWNER OF FLAT No. 111, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
25. Mr. ANUJ GUPTA S/o SHRI R.N. GUPTA
OWNER OF FLAT No. 102, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
26. Mrs. SANGITA GUPTA W/o SHRI ANUJ GUPTA
OWNER OF FLAT No. 102, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
27. Mr. RAVINDER MADAN
S/o LATE SHRI GAURI SHANKAR MADAN
OWNER OF FLAT No. G6, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
..... APPELLANTS
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 8 of 27 pages
VERSUS
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
2. ESTATE OFFICER
SEZ, C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 28.07.2017
First date before this court : 29.07.2017
Arguments concluded on : 22.09.2018
Date of Decision : 08.10.2018
Appearance: Shri Ashish Garg, counsel for appellant
Ms. Promila Kapoor, counsel for respondent
PPA No. 31/2017
1. Mrs. VIAJY LAXMI KANWAR
W/o LATE SHRI MAHINDER KUMAR KANWAR
OWNER OF FLAT No. 301B, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
2. RANJANA SAWHNEY
W/O LATE SHRI NAVEEN CHAND SAWHNEY
OWNER OF FLAT No. 105, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
3. Mrs. NANIDITA KAPOOR W/o SHRI ARUN KAPOOR
OWNER OF FLAT No. 507, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 9 of 27 pages
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
2. ESTATE OFFICER
SEZ, C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 26.08.2017
First date before this court : 28.08.2017
Arguments concluded on : 22.09.2018
Date of Decision : 08.10.2018
Appearance: Shri Ashish Garg, counsel for appellant
Ms. Promila Kapoor, counsel for respondent
PPA No. 07/2018
1. SHRI SURINDER JAIN S/o SHRI KUNDAN LAL JAIN
FLAT No. G2, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
2. SHRI HARISH GOGIA S/o SHRI K.L. GOGIA
FLAT No. 501A, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
3. SHRI MOHIT BOTHRA S/o SHRI VIJAY CHAND BOTHRA
FLAT No. 201B, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
4. Mrs. KARISHMA SABHARWAL
W/o SHRI RAMINDER SINGH HARISH GOGIA
FLAT No. 107, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 10 of 27 pages
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
2. ESTATE OFFICER
SEZ, C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 21.07.2018
First date before this court : 23.07.2017
Arguments concluded on : 22.09.2018
Date of Decision : 08.10.2018
Appearance: Shri Ashish Garg, counsel for appellant
Ms. Promila Kapoor, counsel for respondent
PPA No. 08/2018
1. Dr. NEERJA BHALLA S/o SURENDER KUMAR BHALLA
FLAT No. 305, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
2. SHRI ISHWINDER SINGH S/o SHRI HARVINDER SIGH
FLAT No. 403, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
3. Mrs. DALJEET KAUR W/o SHRI JASBIR SINGH
FLAT No. 108, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
4. BIKRAMJIT SINGH
S/o LATE SHRI GURCHARAN SIGH RAGI
FLAT No. 104, SKIPPER CORNER
88 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 11 of 27 pages
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
2. ESTATE OFFICER
SEZ, C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 21.07.2018
First date before this court : 23.07.2017
Arguments concluded on : 22.09.2018
Date of Decision : 08.10.2018
Appearance: Shri Ashish Garg, counsel for appellant
Ms. Promila Kapoor, counsel for respondent
PPA No. 09/2018
1. SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR GOEL
S/o LATE SHRI P.C. GOEL
FLAT No. B1, B5, B8 & G1B
SKIPPER CORNER, 88 NEHRU PLACE
NEW DELHI 110019
..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
2. ESTATE OFFICER
SEZ, C1/6, VIKAS SADAN
INA, NEW DELHI
...RESPONDENTS
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18
Page 12 of 27 pages
Date of filing : 21.07.2018
First date before this court : 23.07.2017
Arguments concluded on : 22.09.2018
Date of Decision : 08.10.2018
Appearance: Shri Ashish Garg, counsel for appellant
Ms. Promila Kapoor, counsel for respondent
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
1. These seven appeals filed under the provisions of Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, having arisen out of common eviction order dated 10.08.2015 of the Estate Officer are taken up together on account of common factual and legal matrix. On behalf of respondents, instead of filing formal replies to memorandums of these appeals, original record of eviction proceedings was filed. I heard learned counsel for both sides, who also took me through records of the Estate Officer.
2. The impugned eviction order dated 10.08.2015 was passed against the original allottee M/s Skipper Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. while the present appellants are the actual occupants of various commercial spaces in the premises in question. Status of the appellants as occupants was admitted by the respondent DDA after carrying out a verification exercise, as directed during the course of hearing of the present appeals in order to rule out it to be a proxy litigation of the original allottee M/s Skipper Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 13 of 27 pages
3. Factual matrix as pleaded by the appellants is briefly recorded as follows.
3.1 Originally, M/s Skipper Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the builder") acquired perpetual lease hold rights over plot bearing no. 88, Nehru Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the said plot") in a public auction held on 15.10.1979. In accordance with the terms of the said lease, the builder constructed a multi storeyed building on the said plot and the same is now known as Skipper Corner, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
3.2 After construction of Skipper Corner building the builder sold the commercial spaces/flats and handed over possessions thereof to individual space buyers respectively. Appellants are some of those buyers and are presently in occupation of their respectively purchased commercial spaces in the Skipper Corner.
3.3 After selling away all commercial spaces in the Skipper Corner, the builder stopped maintaining the building and also failed to execute the necessary individual title documents in favour of the appellants but continued collecting ground rent, maintenance and sinking fund charges from the occupants/appellants under the pretext that the same would be payable to the respondent DDA. But the builder despite PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 14 of 27 pages having collected those charges from the occupants/appellants did not deposit the same with DDA.
3.4 Since despite collecting all charges, the builder failed to maintain the Skipper Corner, the appellants and other occupants were compelled to create a registered society by the name Skipper Corner Flat Owners & Occupants Association (hereinafter referred to as "the said society") vide registration dated 30.12.1987 and since then the said society has been maintaining the Skipper Corner with a view to promote brotherhood and defend their legal rights and interest.
3.5 On 10.10.2015, the impugned eviction order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the Estate Officer was found affixed at the main entrance of the Skipper Corner. Despite efforts, the appellants could not succeed in contacting the builder. The appellants were somehow able to obtain copy of the impugned eviction order dated 10.08.2015, from which they came to know that the impugned eviction order had been passed on the ground that the builder had failed to deposit the ground rent and other charges. According to the appellants, the builder cheated them by continuing to collect from them ground rent and other charges, which were to be deposited with DDA but the same was not done by the builder.
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 15 of 27 pages 3.6 Under these circumstances, the said society filed a common appeal, thereby challenging the impugned eviction order but subsequently, the said common appeal was withdrawn and the present individual appeals were filed.
4. Upon service of notice of these appeals, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 DDA filed original records of the eviction proceedings, which were tagged with the file of appeal titled Vineet Garg vs DDA, bearing no. PPA 06/2017. As mentioned above, respondent no. 1 also filed an affidavit after verification to the effect that the appellants are actual occupants of various commercial spaces in the building Skipper Corner which was constructed on the said plot. And the appellants having purchased their respective individual commercial spaces from the builder, also hold vital interest therein.
5. I heard Shri Ashish Garg, counsel for appellants and Ms. Promila Kapoor, counsel for respondents, who took me through the original record of eviction proceedings.
6. On behalf of appellants, it was argued by learned counsel that they had been regularly depositing the ground rent and all other charges with the builder and it is the builder who committed default by not depositing the same with DDA, so the individual occupants, who purchased the commercial spaces in the said building cannot be made to PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 16 of 27 pages suffer. Learned counsel for appellants also argued that the impugned eviction order is also not sustainable in the eyes of law since the same was passed without granting them an opportunity to be heard. It was also argued by learned counsel for appellants that even the contents of the impugned eviction order clearly show that the same was passed mechanically, posthaste and without application of mind, so the same is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for respondents DDA defended the impugned eviction order, stating that there is no infirmity in the same. It was argued on behalf of respondents that the Estate Officer continued to adjourn the proceedings for sufficiently long time but none appeared to respond to the notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act which had been served on 27.05.1996 for appearance on 11.06.1996. Therefore, according to the respondents, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed.
8. At the very outset, the undisputed position is that the appellants are the subsequent purchasers and are in occupation of their individual commercial spaces in the Skipper Corner, having purchased the same by way of documents emanating from the builder, though legality of the alleged sale transactions is not and cannot be examined by this court sitting in appeal over the decision of the Estate Officer and the same falls within the domain of the Civil Court proceedings.
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 17 of 27 pages
9. Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, which is one of the two major planks of challenge against the impugned eviction order reads thus:
4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction - (1) If the estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.
(2) The notice shall
(a) specify the grounds on which the orderof eviction is proposed to be made; and
(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises,
(i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date nor earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof; and
(ii) to appear before the estate officer on the date specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired.
3. 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 manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned.
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 18 of 27 pages
10. It is trite that Estate Officer, being a creature of the statute is duty bound to strictly comply with the procedural provisions of the Act. It is equally trite that although the Act does not require lengthy hearing or lengthy crossexamination but the noticee must be given an opportunity to file an effective cause, which can be filed only when eviction is sought for a specified ground and the occupant must know complete particulars in that regard. Where eviction of an unauthorized occupant is sought, the Estate Officer is obligated to apply his mind so as to enable him to form an opinion that the respondent is a person who has been in unauthorized occupation of the public premises and should be evicted. Reference in that regard can be drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Nusli Neville Vadia, (2008) 3SCC 279.
11. Section 4 of the Act at various stages uses the expression "shall" in the sense that the procedural requirements embodied in the provision are mandatory in nature. Section 4 (1) of the Act enjoins a duty on the Estate Officer to issue written notice in the manner provided in the provision, calling upon the unauthorized occupant to show cause why an order of eviction be not made. Section 4(2) of the Act specifically lays down that the show cause notice must specify the grounds on which the eviction order is proposed to be made and must require all persons PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 19 of 27 pages concerned, who are or even may be in occupation of the public premises to show cause and appear before the Estate Officer alongwith the requisite evidence. Section 4(3) of the Act lays down another mandate of law pertaining to the manner in which the show cause notice has to be served and it lays down that the show cause notice must be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some conspicuous part of the public premises, so that even those persons who "may be" in occupation of the premises get to know about the proceedings. Even the format of the show cause notice is specifically prescribed as Form A attached to the said Act.
12. Going by the above reading of Section 4 of the Act coupled with the legal position that Estate Officer is creature of the Act, I am of the considered view that there is no scope to infer any waiver of the statutory mandate of service, content and mode of service of the show cause notice. For, the purpose of the show cause notice under Section 4 of the Act is to enable the occupant effectively defend himself, which cannot be possible if the occupant is not clearly informed in the prescribed format the grounds on which his eviction is being sought.
13. A perusal of the original record of eviction proceedings reflects the eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act were commenced on 17.10.1995 against the builder on the ground that the builder company had misused, unauthorizedly constructed and defaulted in payment of ground rent.
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 20 of 27 pages Notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act was issued to the builder and the matter was repeatedly adjourned for that purpose. In the meanwhile, some or the other stranger to the proceedings would appear before the Estate Officer. For example, on 17.04.1998 one Mrs. Suman Sachdeva appeared on behalf of M/s Perfect Reprographic and stated that she had been regularly paying ground rent to the builder; on the same day one Lala Gauri Shankar also appeared before the Estate Officer and sought time to take up the matter with the builder. On 25.05.1998, Mrs. Suman Sachdeva also filed copy of challan by which she had deposited the ground rent. Thereafter, Mrs. Sachdeva stopped appearing. Matter was repeatedly adjourned for issuance of "summons" across a number of years before the Estate Officer. Finally, in the year 2004, the builder started appearing through its representative before the Estate Officer, but in the year 2005 once again the builder stopped appearing and on 21.03.2006, the Estate Officer reserved the matter for orders. But thereafter the Estate Officer got transferred and the next incumbent the second Estate Officer issued notices to the unauthorized occupants. The second Estate Officer also reserved the matter for orders but got transferred in the year 2008. Before the next incumbent the third Estate Officer also the matter continued to get adjourned for service of notice on the builder across another few years and in the meanwhile, as reflected from proceedings dated 16.05.2012, field staff of DDA also carried out a survey, but again PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 21 of 27 pages the matter continued to crawl before the Estate Officer for issuance of notice only. On 07.10.2015, the Estate Officer directed the Commercial Land Branch of DDA to file a list of occupants of the said premises; on 03.03.2015 and 09.06.2015, the Estate Officer directed issuance of summons to the unauthorized occupants. But on 05.08.2015, without recording the status of service of "summons" on the unauthorized occupants, the Estate Officer abruptly reserved the matter for orders and thereafter passed the impugned eviction order dated 10.08.2015.
14. There are, on the original record of eviction proceedings, a number of notices issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act to the builder and some of individual shopkeepers but apparently there is no clear report reflecting that any of the present appellants was served with notice under Section 4 of the Act. Respondents also do not claim that the present appellants or any of them were served with notice under Section 4 of the Act.
15. As mentioned above, in the course of eviction proceedings it had been specifically brought to the notice of the Estate Officer that the builder had sold away commercial spaces in the Skipper Corner and some of the shopkeepers had also been PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 22 of 27 pages depositing ground rent but despite getting conducted a survey and obtaining the list of unauthorized occupants, the Estate Officer did not issue notice to the occupants.
16. Failure to comply with the mandatory provisions under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act in itself would be sufficient to set aside the impugned eviction order.
17. Coming to the impugned eviction order, the Estate Officer himself recorded that notices were repeatedly sent to the builder but the same returned undelivered with the remarks that the addressee had left the premises. Obviously, having sold away all commercial spaces in the building, the builder had no interest left. But it remains unexplained as to why the Estate Officer, who sat over the eviction proceedings for 20 years opted not to even record service of individual notices issued to the unauthorized occupants after having obtained a list of the occupants by way of survey. The appellants were thus clearly deprived of a right to be heard before passing an order adverse against them, so the impugned eviction order is not sustainable.
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 23 of 27 pages
18. In the present case, admittedly no show cause notice was issued to any of the appellants. Also admittedly, none of the appellants participated in the eviction proceedings before the Estate Officer. Merely because the builder, who was according to the appellants their predecessorininterest was served with the show cause notice, in view of admitted position that the Estate Officer was aware about the appellants being in occupation and claiming interest in the said public premises, issuance of show cause notice to the appellants could not be dispensed with. For, failure to serve show cause notice led to deprivation of the appellants' right to submit effective cause opposing their eviction. In this regard, Section 4(2) (b) of the Act specifically uses the expression "all persons who are, or, may be, in occupation" which shows that it covers not only those persons who are in occupation of the public premises in the knowledge of the Estate Officer, but even those persons who might be in occupation of the premises. Both categories have to be issued show cause notice under Section 4 of the Act so as to enable them fairly and effectively defend themselves. And it is to ensure coverage of the second category, namely "may be in occupation" that vide Section 4(3), service of the notice has to be by way of affixation. But in the present case, even as regards the builder, the alleged service of show cause notice under Section 4 of the Act was not by way of affixation, as mandated by subsection (2)
(b) of Section 4 of the Act.
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 24 of 27 pages
19. Nevertheless, in view of clear intent of the legislature to mandate service of show cause notice under Section 4 of the Act on not just those who "are" in occupation, but also those who "may be" in occupation, I am unable to accept the respondents' contention that since the builder was served with the notice, there was no need to issue such notice to the appellants. More so, because as per records of the Estate Officer also, the appellants claim interest in the said public premises.
20. There is another aspect. Even the notice under Section 4 of the Act cannot be worded in any manner other than the prescribed format, laid down by law. For, as mentioned above, the Estate Officer is a creature of law and cannot travel beyond the enactment. Rule 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules 1971, specifically lays down a mandate that the notice under the Act shall be in one of the appropriate forms appended to the Rules. The relevant form of notice under Section 4 of the Act is Form A. Therefore, any communication which is not strictly in Form A, cannot be accepted as a notice under Section 4 of the Act and thereby the necessary statutory compliance. Form A contains an opinion of the Estate Officer that on the basis of grounds mentioned in the Form, the addressee is in unauthorized occupation of the public premises and should be evicted from the said premises. Notice in format as per Form A also must specifically contain the grounds as PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 25 of 27 pages well as it must call upon the addressee to show cause why an eviction order be not passed and a specific direction to the addressee to appear before the Estate Officer in person or through a duly authorized representative capable to answer all material questions connected with the matter along with the evidence which the addressee intends to produce in support of the cause shown. In the present case, the show cause notice issued to even the builder, copies whereof are in the original record of the eviction proceedings was not clear and specific in so far as the grounds were vaguely mentioned as "misuse, unauthorized construction and nonpayment of ground rent". The nature and/or details of neither the alleged misuser nor the alleged unauthorized construction nor the amount of allegedly unpaid ground rent was mentioned in the said notice under Section 4 of the Act issued to the builder and in the absence of those particulars, there was no fair opportunity to the addressee to submit effective response.
21. Besides, the impugned eviction order dated 10.08.2015 makes out an interesting reading. In first three paragraphs, the impugned eviction order simply mentions about the reference, issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Act to the builder and failure on the part of the builder to appear across 20 years. After those three paragraphs, three pages mention only the legal provisions, that too wrongly. In the end, there is a vaguely worded finding that the Estate Officer is satisfied that PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 26 of 27 pages the builder is in unauthorized occupation, so ordered to vacate. I am in agreement with learned counsel for appellants that there is absolute non application of mind while passing the impugned eviction order. Rather, in a number of similar cases pertaining to different areas under control of DDA, absolutely similar eviction orders quoting even wrong provisions of law in cyclostyled manner have been passed and in absolutely similar circumstances of the Estate Officer abruptly closing the proceedings.
22. Thus, the impugned eviction order suffers from not just vice of abrogation of jus naturale and failure to comply with mandate of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act but also absolute nonapplication of mind. Therefore, the impugned eviction order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
23. Consequently, the impugned eviction order dated 10.08.2015 is set aside and the above appeals are allowed. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Estate Officer along with original records and appeal f iles be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court on
this 08th day of October, 2018 (GIRISH KATHPALIA)
District & Sessions Judge
Digitally signed
by GIRISH South East, Saket Courts
GIRISH
New Delhi 08.10.2018 (a)
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date:
2018.10.09
16:00:27 +0530
PPA Nos. 06/17, 24/17, 26/17, 31/17, 07/18, 08/18, 09/18 Page 27 of 27 pages