Sh. Balbir Singh vs Delhi Development Authority (Through ... on 24 September, 2022

[Cites 20, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sh. Balbir Singh vs Delhi Development Authority (Through ... on 24 September, 2022

         IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR
     PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : WEST
         DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI

PPA No. 19/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-007030-2016

M/s Talwar Paint Works
Through authorised persons

1.         Sh. Balbir Singh
           S/o Late Sh. Kanwar Singh
           R/o 20-B/29-B, Tilak Nagar
           New Delhi-110018.

2.         Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta
           S/o Late Sh. Ram Asre Gupta
           R/o 429, Faridpuri, West Patel Nagar,
           New Delhi-110008.

3.         Sh.Ashok Kumar Agrahari
           S/o Sh.Panch Dev Agrahari
           R/o RZC 35, Plot No.102, Kh. No. 21/20
           West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046.

4.         Sh. Kultar Singh
           S/o S. Isher Singh
           R/o 20-B/118-AB, Tilak Nagar

                                           ......... Appellants
           Versus

1. Delhi Development Authority (through Vice Chairman)
   INA, Vikas Sadan
   New Delhi-110023

2. Estate Officer, DDA
   Office of the Estate Officer (West)
   Subhash Nagar Crossing, New Delhi
                                           ....... Respondents


Date of filing of appeal                   :           23.09.2016
Date of hearing arguments                  :           14.09.2022
Date of judgment                           :           24.09.2022




PPA No. 19/16                                                       1
 Appearances:

Sh. Sanjeev Manchanda, Ld. Counsel for appellant.
Sh.Anupam Sharma and Sh Tarun Sharma, Ld. Counsels for DDA


                             JUDGMENT

1. The appellants has preferred the present appeal against final order passed by Estate Officer, Delhi Development Authority, Land Officer, Management, Room No.1, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi vide his order on Eviction dated 07.09.2016 in EV/C212/1/Rewari Line/Ph- II/03/363 dated 07.09.2016 whereby the Estate Officer has held that the appellants are in unauthorized occupation of the land measuring 410 square yard following on plot no.C-212/1 Rewari Line, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Mayapuri, New Delhi and ordered to vacate the said premises/ land within 15 days from the date of communication of the order.

2. It is stated that Estate Officer further ordered that in the event of refusal or failure to comply with the order within the stipulated period, the appellant herein shall be liable to be evicted from the said premises, if need be, by use of such force as may be necessary the copy of impugned order dated 07.09.2016. It is stated that appellants have challenged the impugned order interalia on the ground that no notice under Section 4 of the Act was served or any of the appellant herein which is a grave error vitiating the entire eviction proceedings conducted by Ld. Estate Officer culminating in passing of the impugned order.

3. It is stated on 11.07.2016, appellants wrote a letter to the Director (Industrial), DDA regarding request for dues of plot in question that appellants are ready to pay all charges. It is stated that on 02.08.2016 Estate Officer, Wrote a letter to Deputy Director, DDA PPA No. 19/16 2 vide no. EO/ (LM) WZ/Revari Line / P-II regarding notice under Section 4 (1) have been issued but all the applicants were never provided with an opportunity to be heard.

4. It is stated that on 04.08.2016 Deputy Director issued a letter to Sh. Balbir Singh based upon an old inspection report dated 25.08.2015 that lease deed could be restored. It is stated that on 23.08.2016 (07.09.2016) Estate Officer passed an order for eviction. It is worth mentioning that no one had delivered / served the final order to the appellants but contrary to it one employee of DDA thrown near the property after four days these notices were handover to owners i.e. 39 notice out of which 11 orders are without detailed order dated 23.08.2016 all the order under Sub-Section-1 of Section 5 of the Public Premises Act are photocopy and without stamp not original as per law. It is stated that it is worth mentioning that two notices sent against expired persons.

5. Brief facts of the case is that the plot no.C-212/I, Rewari Line Industrial Area-II, Maya Puri, New Delhi was alloted to M/s Talwar Paint Works on 31.01.1974. List of dates and synopsis of M/s Talwar Paints Works is as follows. On 31.01.1974 Lease deed issued in favour of M/s. Talwar Paint Works in three partners i. Sh. Radha Krishan, ii. Balmukand Talwar and iii. Sh.Mukhan Lal Talwar. On 05.06.1996 the said three partners executed General Power of Attorney in favour of four persons, i. Smt. Anita Garg, ii. Sh.Pawan Goel, iii S. Jasbir Singh, iv. Sh. Prem Kumar Anand. On 10.08.1999 above four persons executed General Power of Attorney in favour of five persons namely i. S. Balbir Singh, ii. S. Kultar Singh, iii. Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta and iv. Sh.Ashok Kumar Agrahani. On 13.03.2022 DDA issued one letter vide F6A/(700)/68/LSB/(1) 498 dated 13.03.2002 regarding determination of lease deed in respect of plot no. C-212/1, PPA No. 19/16 3 Rewari Line Indl. Area, Phase-II, Mayapuri, New Delhi. On 23.09.2009 S.Balbir Singh requested to DDA that he is ready to pay charges and request for restoration of lease / plot.

6. On 22.06.2010 S. Balbir singh requested to Lt. Governor that he is ready to pay charges and request for restoration of lease / plot. On 29.08.2012 letter wrote by S. Balbir Singh again requested to DDA that he is ready to pay charges and request for restoration of lease / plot. On 08.05.2013, S. Balbir Singh requested to Director (Indl.) that he is ready to pay charges and request for restoration of lease / plot. On 01.12.2014 S. Balbir singh requested to DDA that he is ready to pay charges and request for restoration of lease / plot. On 12.03.2015 S. Balbir singh requested to DDA that he is ready to pay charges and request for restoration of lease/ plot. On 11.07.2016, S. Balbir Singh requested to DDA that he is ready to pay charges and request for restoration of lease / plot. On 02.08.2016, Estate officer issued a letter to Dy. Director (Indl.) regarding under Section 4 (1) have been issued to all occupants 55 shops and one restaurant and the next date is 05.08.2016. On 04.08.2016, letter from DDA to Sh.Balbir Singh and others that breaches of the lease deed still exists as per request for restoration of lease deed cannot be acceded to. On 07.09.2016 Estate Officer passed order for eviction on 23.08.2016 and numbered on 07.09.2016. The case of the DDA is in impugned order passed on 23.08.2016 and numbered on 07.09.2016.

7. Appellants assailed the impugned order interalia on the following grounds. It is stated that order of Learned Estate Officer is erroneous both on law and facts and appellant deserves to be in possession and regularization of the property in question in their names. It is stated that Ld. Estate Officer has committed grave error while passing impugned order without appreciating that show cause PPA No. 19/16 4 notice has been issued without application of mind and in a mechanical manner.

8. It is stated that the impugned order dated 23.08.2016 and numbered on 07.09.2016 of the public premises Act is defective, misconceived and wrong. It is stated that it does not find mention the notification number by which the power of Estate Officer has conferred to the Estate Officer by the Central Govt. It is stated that it does not find mention as to on what grounds the lease has alleged been cancelled and any judicial process exhausted before cancellation of lease. It is further stated that it does not find mention the date of cancellation of lease. It is stated that the reason and grounds for proposed action and proceedings under PP Act has not been mentioned. It is stated that it does not disclose any find mention as to which particular area or portion of the plot is under whose possession. It is stated that notice is cyclostyled/ photocopy printed performa without application of judicial mind as the same is illegal and void and liable to be set aside.

9. It is stated that appellants have challenged the impugned order interalia on the ground that no notice under Section 4 of the Act was served on any of the appellants herein which is a grave error vitiating the entire eviction proceedings conducted by Ld. Estate Officer culminating in passing of the impugned order. It is stated on 11.07.2016 appellants wrote a letter to the Director (industrial) DDA regarding request for dues of plot in question that appellants are ready to pay all charges.

10. It is stated that on 02.08.2016 Estate Officer wrote a letter to Dy. Director, DDA vide no. EO/ (LM) WZ/Revari Line/P-II regarding notice under Section 4 (1) have not been issued but all the applicants were never received and provided with an opportunity to be PPA No. 19/16 5 heard. It is stated that on 04.08.2016 Dy. Director issued a letter to Sh.Balbir Singh based upon old inspection report dated 25.08.2015 that lease deed could not be restored. It is stated that impugned order suffers from non-application of mind since the Estate Officer has failed to decide correctly the regularization of the appellant case.

11. It is stated that on one hand the order by the Estate Officer confirms that pursuant to its own order dated 07.09.2015. It is stated that no one has delivered / served the final order to the appellants but contrary to it one employee of DDA thrown near the property and after four days these notices were handed over to owners by tenants. It is stated that if a lessee of a public premises is allowed to remain in the premises even after expiry of the lease and the public authority concerned accepts the rent, his occupation becomes authorized occupations as they becomes a tenant holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.

12. It is stated that Learned Estate Officer has grossly erred is not considering the inherent inconsistencies and glaring contradictions in the story of the Inspection Officer, for which the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the appellant. It is stated that the testimonies of the inspection officer witnesses read as whole do not point to the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant herein beyond a shadow of doubt.

13. It is stated that the impugned orders are bad for violation of the rule of natural justice. It is stated that GPA holder of M/s Talwar Paint Works were not properly heard and decisions were reached behind their back on 23.08.2016 which numbered on 07.09.2016. It is stated that papers filed for regularization were not taken into consideration and the order was passed on 07.09.2016 on the basis of an old inspection carried on 25.08.2015.

PPA No. 19/16 6

14. It is stated that as per provisions of Section (6) (2), if the matter is transferred from one Estate Officer to the other Estate Officer, he may either re-start it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred. However, the Estate Officer in gross violation of this Section neither re-started it nor proceeded from the point at which it was transferred. It is stated that order passed by the Estate Officer was without any proper inquiry or investigation because the inspection officer conducted the inspection on 25.08.2015 and thereafter no inspection was conducted by the DDA and the order passed on 07.09.2016 on the basis of story setup by the DDA. It is stated that in other words the DDA has failed to bring on record any evidence which would prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, that the appellant was in fact the person who had induced the regularized of the property in concerned. There is not a single witness of the public, who has identified the person of M/s Talwar Paint Works appellant as the person who had come DDA office and sought that they are ready to pay the charges / mis-use charges / penalty of restore the lease.

15. It is stated that the Estate Officer overlooked the law under Section 4 (2) of the Act according to which the notice to be issued by the estate officer must specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made and that is also apparent from the statutory form, being form A appended to the rules under the Acts. A notice not specifying the grounds, therefore is bad and vitiates the entire proceedings. It is stated that Estate Officer has overlooked the facts that the appellant is legal representative through GPA. It is stated that the Estate Officer has overlooked the fact that M/s Talwar Paint works requested to DDA (Lesser) for the restoration of lease deed regarding the property in question.

PPA No. 19/16 7

16. It is stated that the Estate Officer has overlooked the fact that the serious prejudice has been caused to the appellants and tenants in defending themselves due to the deliberate act on the part of the Inspecting Officer in choosing selective documents. It is stated that fair investigation and fair trial would necessitate that all documents filed GPA holders. It is stated that Estate Officer over looked material evidence which would established that the appellants has filed all documents for restoration / regularisation. It is stated that the Estate officer has failed to perceive the deliberate attempt on the part of the inspecting officer to that the inspection report dated 25.08.2015 is totally contrary and contradictions of reports shows in impugned order dated 23.08.2016/07.09.2016.

17. It is stated that the Estate officer overlooked the facts that the rent of premises is already deposited in advance by M/s Talwar Paint Works. It is stated that the principle of presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt postulates that the evidence led in the proceeding during trial by the DDA has to be subjected to a minute and meticulous examination. It is stated that it is because of these cardinal principles of jurisprudence that the depositions / statements of the witnesses in the trial court cannot be accepted at their face value as gospel truth, but their veracity needs to be proved beyond doubt. It is stated that in the present case, the Estate Officer ought to consider that such witnesses have to be weighed with caution and ought not to be made the sole basis for the guilt in the absence of any clear testimony.

18. It is stated that order cannot be passed without giving fair opportunity to be heard to all the effected persons and occupants. It is stated that any order passed without giving proper opportunity to all the concerned affected persons/ occupants would be against the PPA No. 19/16 8 principal of natural justice, rule and law. It is stated that the said order dated 23.08.2016 - 07.09.2016 would be illegal as such the order is liable to set aside. It is stated that Estate officer failed to appreciate the plea of defence and has rejected the evidence led by the defence. Appellants have prayed that impugned order of eviction dated 07.09.2016 may be set aside and consequentially regularize the appellant in the said property and order dated 13.03.2002 passed by Dy. Director (Indl.) may be set aside.

19. DDA/ Respondent no.1 filed detailed reply. It is stated that present appeal is not maintainable as the same is the outcome of the malafide intention of the appellants. It is stated that they want to grab the government land. It is stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal no.3783/2016 arising out of SLP (C) No. 6978/2012 titled as Delhi Development Authority vs M/s Anant Raj Agencies (P) Ltd. has already settled the issue in hand and has disallowed any restoration and have upheld the action of the DDA to resume the possession and also to seek damages from the allottees whose lease are cancelled. It is stated that the present appeal is barred by the judgment and hence the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

20. It is stated that present appeal is not maintainable as the appellants have no locus standi to file the present appeal being an unauthorized occupant. Hence the present appeal is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. It is stated that present appeal is not maintainable as the appellants have not approached the court with clean hands. Hence the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the appellant is liable to be tried under Section 340 Cr.P.C for committing perjury with the court. It is stated that appellant are not entitled to any relief under natural justice and equity.

PPA No. 19/16 9

21. It is stated that appeal is liable to be dismissed as the appellant has not come to the court with clean hands and concealed material facts. It is stated that real facts are that M/s Talwar Paints Works was allotted an industrial plot no. C-212/1 in Rewari Line Industrial Area, Phase-II vide letter dated 30.12.1968. The possession of the plot was handed over to the unit on 12.12.1970 and the lease deed was executed on 31.01.1974. It is stated that DDA field staff inspected the plot in question and reported about unauthorized construction/ addition / alteration. Therefore, show-cause notices were issued to the unit on 05.11.1996, 23.03.1998, 20.07.1998, 30.12.1998 and 31.10.2000 on account of violation of the terms and conditions of the perpetual lease deed. Thereafter, the final show cause notice was issued to the unit 04.10.2001 but the unit failed to remove the unauthorized construction/ addition / alteration from the plot. Therefore, the perpetual lease deed of the plot in question was determined by the competent authority i.e Hon'ble LG, Delhi vide order dated 25.02.2002 and the cancellation letter was issued to the unit on 13.03.2002 with building and structures standing thereon to the concerned Assistant Engineer of Industrial Branch, DDA on the stipulated date and time mentioned in the letter but the unit failed to do so.

22. It is stated that after cancellation of the plot in question, the case was referred to the concerned Estate Officer, DDA to initiate eviction proceedings under Public Premises Eviction of unauthorized (occupants) Act 1971. One Shri Raghu Bhushan Khanna R/o 20-B/39- B-40A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi had made written complaints dated 09.07.2012 and 07.08.2012 regarding change of land use from industrial to hotel / lodge business by the owner of the plot in question. Thus on receipt of above said complaints, the plot in question was inspected by the AE (LSB) Indl and he furnished the PPA No. 19/16 10 inspection report dated 22.04.2013 along with photographs. The details of which are reproduced below "The unit is constructed upto second floor including basement. The floorwise uses are given as under:-

Basement: There are 26 (approx) number of shops of different shopkeepers of old motor spare parts.

Ground Floor- Approximately 30 nos. of shops of different shopkeepers of old motor spare parts.

First & Second floors- Hotel Maya is running on First floor and second floor at the time of inspection.

23. It is stated that all setbacks are covered upto second floor with pucca structure. The status of above inspection report was communicated to the Estate Officer, Land Management (West Zone), DDA vide letter dated 23.12.2013 with request to intimate the status of eviction proceedings No. EV/C-212/1/Rewari Line/Phase-II and necessary action for stopping the breaches being carried out in contravention of MPD-2021 at the earliest. Since as per above inspection report, the breaches of the lease deed were existing, therefore, the request of Shri Balbir Singh & Ors. for restoration of lease deed was rejected and communicated to them vide letter dated 26.12.2013. Since Shri Balbir singh & Ors. Vide letter dated 06.02.2014 had again requested for restoration of plot in question, therefore, the AE (LSB) Indl. again inspected the plot and furnished the inspection report dated 03.06.2014 are reproduced below:-

Basement shops exist which are being used for storage of auto parts and bearing of vehicle.

Ground floor partly is being used for trading of auto parts, bearing, chain pulling etc. and partly is being used for reception of "Maya Palace Guest House". First floor is being used for guest house PPA No. 19/16 11 purpose. Second floor partly open to sky and part constructed which is lying vacant at the time of inspection and in the possession of guest house.

24. The DDA staff again inspected the plot in question and furnished a report dated 20.06.2014 that the occupants of Maya Palace Guest House denied to inspect the plot as there owner was not present at the time of inspection. The DDA field staff/ JE (LSB) Indl.

appeared before the court of Estate Officer, West Zone on 11.08.2014 and has furnished a report that the status of ground floor and first floor is same reported by the filed staff on 03.06.2014. No activity was found on Second floor. The Estate Officer, Land Management (West Zone) disposed of the case by passing the Eviction order dated 07.09.2016, the operative part of which is reproduced as under:-

"........Finally on 23.08.2016 heard the case at length and after going through the record available on the file, it has been proved that the respondent, as per list enclosed violated / misused the premises as shops/ restaurant etc and used as commercial purpose which is clear cut violation of terms and conditions of lease deed. It would also be seen that the respondents had been uilizing this property since the cancellation of lease. Hence, the respondents are liable to pay the rent / damages from the date of the cancellation of the lease DDA (Indl.) DDA is hereby directed to access the damage / rent from the date of cancellation of lease who have already make out the plot on parts and unauthorized occupants (55 shops and one restaurant).

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers, conferred upon me under Section 5 (1) of PP Act 1971, I hereby order that all the other unauthorized occupants who may be unauthorized occupation of public premises / land or any part thereof are ordered to vacate the said premises / land within 15 days from the date of communication of PPA No. 19/16 12 this order. In the event of refusal or failure to comply with this order within the stipulated period, the said M/s Talwar Paints Works who divided the property in parts and all other person concerned, as mentioned above in para-7, are liable to be evicted from the said premises, if need be, by use of such force as may be necessary".

25. In view of aforesaid orders of the Estate Officer, DDA, the petitioner was requested vide letter dated 29.09.2016 to hand over the possession of the plot no. C-212/1, Rewari Line Indl. Area on the date and on 17.10.2016 at 11.00 a.m. However, instead of handing over back the physical possession of the plot in question, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant M/s Talwar Paint Works.

26. In para wise reply, Estate Officer, Land Management (West Zone) disposed of the case by passing the eviction order dated 07.09.2016. In view of the aforesaid orders of the Estate Officer, DDA the petitioner was requested vide letter dated 29.09.2016 to hand over the possession of the plot No. C-212/1, Rewari Line Indl. Area, Phase- II, New Delhi on 17.10.2016 at 11.00 a.m. However, instead of handing over back the physically possession of the plot in question, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant M/s Talwar Works.

27. It is stated that contents of para 2 of the appeal is wrong and denied. It is stated that the Estate Officer had sent the notice for hearing to the appellant under Section 4 (1), 7(3) on 22.01.2004 to appear in person or through authorized representative. Thereafter, several opportunities were given to the appellants on 02.02.2016, 01.03.2016, 01.04.2016, 13.05.2016 and on 12.07.2016 and contention of the appellant was heard. It is further stated that the contents of para 3 are twisted and are denied except the receipt of representation for restoration of lease deed of the plot in question is not denied. It is stated that since the breaches due to which lease was PPA No. 19/16 13 determined has not been stopped. The misuse could not be finalized in the absence of removal of breaches. The earlier request of appellant for restoration of lease was rejected vide letter dated 26.12.2003 as breaches were still existed there. The request of restoration of lease deed may be considered by competent authority only when appellant remove the breaches due to which lease was determined and furnishing an undertaking for payment of all penal charges and restoration charges. Since the unit has not removed the breaches, request of restoration and finalization of dues could not be considered.

28. It is stated that contents of para no.4 and 5 of the appeal are wrong. It is stated that Estate Officer issued notice under Section 4 (1) to unauthorized occupants as intimated by him vide his letter dated 02.08.2016. It is stated that the request of the appellant of restoration of lease deed of the plot in question was examined but rejected vide letter dated 04.08.2016 as the breaches of the lease deed existing. It is further stated that even as per inspection report dated 29.08.2015 the breaches were still existed. It is stated that para no.6 of the appeal is wrong and denied. It is stated that appellants were heard by Estate Officer before passing Eviction orders dated 07.09.2016.

29. It is stated that the notices to all the unauthorized occupants were issued on 05.08.2016 by the Estate Officer when the said eviction order was passed. Appellants were present before Estate Officer. After cancellation of the plot in question, the case was referred to the concerned Estate Officer, DDA to initiate eviction proceedings under Public Premises Eviction of unauthorized (occupants) Act 1971. One Shri Raghu Bhushan Khanna R/o 20-B/39- B-40A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi had made written complaints dated 09.07.2012 and 07.08.2012 regarding change of land use from industrial to hotel / lodge business by the owner of the plot in PPA No. 19/16 14 question. Thus on receipt of above said complaints, the plot in question was inspected by the AE (LSB) Indl and he furnished the inspection report dated 22.04.2013 along with photographs. The details of which are reproduced below, "the unit is constructed upto second floor including basement. The floorwise uses are given as under:-

Basement: There are 26 (approx) number of shops of different shopkeepers of old motor spare parts.

Ground Floor- Approximately 30 nos. of shops of different shopkeepers of old motor spare parts.

First & Second floors- Hotel Maya is running on First floor and second floor at the time of inspection.

30. It is stated that all setbacks are covered upto second floor with pucca structure. The status of above inspection report was communicated to the Estate Officer, Land Management (West Zone), DDA vide letter dated 23.12.2013 with request to intimate the status of eviction proceedings No. EV/C-212/1/Rewari Line/Phase-II and necessary action for stopping the branches being carried out in contravention of MPD-2021 at the earliest. Since as per above inspection report, the breaches of the lease deed were existing, therefore, the request of Shri Balbir Singh & Ors. For restoration of lease deed was rejected and communicated to them vide letter dated 26.12.2013. Since Shri Balbir singh & Ors. Vide letter dated 06.02.2014 had again requested for restoration of plot in question, therefore, the AE (LSB) Indl. again inspected the plot and furnished the inspection report dated 03.06.2014 are reproduced below:-

Basement shops exist which are being used for storage of auto parts and bearing of vehicle.

PPA No. 19/16 15

Ground floor partly is being used for trading of auto parts, bearing, chain pulling etc. and partly is being used for reception of "Maya Palace Guest House".

First floor is being used for guest house purpose. Second floor partly open to sky and part constructed which is lying vacant at the time of inspection and in the possession of guest house.

31. The DDA filed staff again inspected the plot in question and furnished a report dated 20.06.2014 that the occupants of Maya Palace Guest House denied to inspect the plot as there owner was not present at the time of inspection. The DDA field staff/ JE (LSB) Indl.

32. It is stated that contents of para 9 of the appeal along with ground para A to X are wrong and denied in view of the detailed submissions mentioned in above paras and the preliminary objections taken. The appellant in one breath is admitting the breaches and deviation from the policy of DDA and the same breath is seeking the relief under the same policy. It cannot be allowed. Once the appellant admit that allotted plot and the construction thereupon has been altered and has till date not been restored as per the sanction, moreover the sanctioned activities are not being carried out on the site, the lease is not entitled to be restored to the subsequent purchasers. The order dated 07.09.2016 passed by Estate Officer is legal and valid. The order dated 07.09.2016 was passed by virtue of power conferred under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971.

PPA No. 19/16 16

33. I have heard Sh. Sanjeev Manchanda, Ld. Counsel for Appellants and Sh. Anupam Sharma, Ld. Counsel for DDA and also gone through the appeal as well as trial court record of Estate Officer.

34. Ld. Counsel for appellant orally submitted that the eviction order was passed on the basis of Section 4 of the PPA for unauthorised construction. Ld. Counsel for appellant that in the eviction order no reference was made for proceedings before Estate Officer for the period from 2004 to 2016. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that only four dates of proceedings for the year 2016 has been mentioned in the impugned order. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that there is no reference of the proceedings of 12 years before Estate Officer. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that appellant in between has filed 10 representation for regularization of the property as he is ready to pay the charges including unauthorised charges.

35. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that the case was pending before the Estate Officer for 12 years. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that the eviction order does not mention the details of the unauthorised occupants/shops. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that the Section 4 of PPA was not complied. Ld. Counsel for appellant further submitted that the eviction was not received to any one. Ld. Counsel for appellant further submitted that the signature of Appellant Balbir was not taken on any paper for receiving any order. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that no specified reason was given for cancellation of restoration of lease deed. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that no opportunity was given to the respondents for proper hearing.

36. Ld. Counsel for respondent/DDA submitted that property in question belongs to DDA and given on lease. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that the lease was determined in 2002 and it was PPA No. 19/16 17 found that the appellant had committed various breaches of the terms and conditions of the lease deed, therefore, show-cause notice had been issued to the unauthorised occupants. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that premises had been inspected on various dates and on perusal of all the inspection reports, it is clear that the breaches are still continuing. Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that the entire building is not only being misused but has been sub-let and unauthorised construction had also been found.

37. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that the show cause notice was not issued in routine manner but it was issued on the basis of unauthorised construction in public property as per Public Premises Act. Ld Counsel for respondent submitted that notice under Section 4 has been issued and same has been served upon M/s Talwar Paints. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that respondents are required to appear before Estate Officer and produce their evidence but they did not produce their defence. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that sufficient opportunities were given to the appellants to contest their case. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that more than 12 years time was granted to the appellants. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that inspection of site and legality of lease deed does not within the jurisdiction of Estate Officer and the same pertains to the DDA. Ld. Counsel for respondent further submitted that the breaches at the property have yet not been removed and are still continuing till the last inspection. Ld. Counsel for respondent that all the persons against whom notice has been issued have separate cause of action and if they do not appear before the court in appeal, the eviction order binding upon them.

38. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that the restoration of the lease deed has already been rejected and has been conveyed to the PPA No. 19/16 18 respondents. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that respondents have admitted that the notice has been issued to them. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that the notice under Section 5 (1) of PP Act has been issued to all the unauthorised occupants and only M/s Talwar Paints have assailed the order. Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal no.3783/2016 arising out of SLP (C) No. 6978/2012 titled as Delhi Development Authority vs M/s Anant Raj Agencies (P) Ltd.

39. Ld. Counsel for appellant has also filed written submissions on 28.03.2019 in which they reiterated the facts of the petition. It is submitted that the order cannot be passed without giving fair opportunity to be heard to all the effected persons and occupants. Any order passed without giving proper opportunity to all the concerned affected persons/ occupants would be against the principal of natural justice, rule and law. The said order would be illegal as such the order is liable to be set aside.

40. It is submitted that as per circular DDA No. F(26/ (1)/07/Coodn (LD) 24 dated 31.03.2008 circular the conversion policy was formulated my MOUD in 1992 and circulars on the subject have been issued from time to time by DDA. In order to streamline the process of conversion case, the gist of relevant instructions issued from time to time with necessary clarification are re-produced at point 'd'.

Conversion will be allowed after recovery of mast misuse charges as per policy whether earlier demanded or not; In the cases where allotment has been cancelled or lease has been determined on account of unauthorized sale, conversion will be allowed after obtaining approval of competent authority for restoration of allotment / lease deed and on recovery of restoration charges.

PPA No. 19/16 19

41. It is submitted that in this case without prejudice to other rights and contentions the appellants are ready to deposit all charges but in this case DDA has failed to comply request of the appellant. It is submitted that order of eviction dated 07.09.2016 in EV/C212/1/Rewari Line/PH-2/03/363 dated 07.09.2016 is to be set aside and consequentially regularize the appellant in the above said property.

42. Ld. Counsel for appellant has submitted further brief submission on 14.07.2022. It is submitted that the status report filed on behalf of Delhi Development Authority is not as per the directions of this court as per order dated 28.03.2022. It is stated that court vide order dated 28.03.2022 directed the respondent to provide the details of such properties freehold and lease restored so far on the basis of orders issued by DDA. It is stated that court vide order dated 28.03.2022 directed the respondent to provide the detailed report regarding the process followed by the DDA for restoring of leasehold and also for conveyance deed and the order issued by DDA in this connection. It is stated that the above directions of this court have not complied by the respondents instead they have submitted the "status report" of the suit property to mislead this court.

43. It is submitted that the present status report which was filed by the respondent before this court is based on the old eviction order passed by Estate Officer which is invalid as per the laws and these status reports are nothing but shame documents just to support the wrong eviction order passed by the Estate Officer. It is submitted that the minutes of meeting were passed on 29.10.2021 which was totally wrong. Even minutes of the meeting is not related to appellants property and it is related to plot no.11/47, Kirti Nagar, WHS. It is submitted that the third paragraph of the minutes is as under:-

PPA No. 19/16 20

"It was briefed by Director (Coordination & Indl) that plot no.II/47, Kirti Nagar, WHS lease deed was determined by Hon'ble LG due to unauthorised construction of sheds in the rear and front setbacks for storage and manufacturing purposes and also the said plot was sold by Sh.Jagmohan Lal(allotee) to Smt. Harjinder Kaur unauthorizedly vide Agreement to Sell/ GPA dated 20.11.1984. The cancellation order was communicated to the allotee vide letter dated 19.06.1989. further, eviction order was passed by Estate Officer on 08.06.2001."

It shows the intention of the respondent that they had already decided not to consider the legal right of the appellants to get their property's restoration of lease.

44. It is submitted that from the reply of RTI application, it is clear that Delhi Development Authority restored / regularized several such properties in the same Industrial area, where Banquet Halls are still running. In the light of the above facts, it is prayed to this court to please issue directions to the the respondents to process the application for restoration of the applicants in accordance with the existing regularization procedure laid down by the Delhi Development Authority. It is submitted that the respondent in their reply had already admitted that the applicants had deposited Rs.25,82,789/- to the respondents for conversion of the subject premises from leasehold to freehold after restoration as per the guidelines of the Delhi Development Authority.

45. It is submitted that Delhi Development Authority's Circular No. F.26 (1)/07/Coordn (LD)/24 dated 31.03.2008 regarding restoration of lease / conversion clearly stated that the appellants are eligible for restoration of lease / conversion, a copy of which is enclosed herewith Annexure A for ready reference of this court.

PPA No. 19/16 21

(e) In cases where allotment has been cancelled or lease has been determined on account of unauthorized sale, conversion will be allowed after obtaining approval of competent authority for restoration of allotment / lease deed and on recovery of restoration charges.

(f) It lease has been determined and allotment has been cancelled on account of unauthorized construction and misuse, the lease will be restored without insisting on removal of breaches and conversion and subject to payment all penal charges. However, in cases where GPA and Agreement to Sell has been made after determination of lease deed or cancellation of allotment, in such cases, the request of conversion will not be entertained.

(h) In cases where lease have been determined or allotment have been cancelled after the date of GPA or Agreement to Sell, conversion may allowed subject of recovery of restoration charges and other dues payable by the lessee.

46. It is submitted that the appellants time and again requested the respondents to restore the lease of the suit property within the permitted rules of the Delhi Development Authority but the same was not considered at all by the respondent. It is submitted that even now the appellants are ready to pay the restoration charges and other dues payable for restoration of lease of their property immediately as and when the respondents convey the same to them. Since the respondent illegally and with a bad intention refusing to restore the lease of the suit property and proceed to eviction of the appellants. Ld. Counsel for appellants submitted that the appellants never received the notice under Section 4 of PPA.

PPA No. 19/16 22

47. Ld. Counsel for appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd v. State of Haryana & Anr. 2011 (4) KLJ 682 (SC), judgment of Hon'ble High court of Delhi title Damayanti Verma (deceased) through her LRs vs LIC and Anr., WP (C) No. 4342/2007.

48. In order to appreciate the respective submissions of both the parties, let us peruse the record of proceedings conducted by Estate Officer. As per record, perpetual lease deed issued in favour of M/s Talwar Paint Works bearing no. C-212/1, Rewari Line, Industrial Area, Phase-II on 31.01.1974. Show cause notice issued on 20.07.1998 wherein it is revealed that on inspection building was found demolished by Sh. Ramesh & Rajesh who purchased the building from the allottee as disclosed by the man available at the site. The new construction work was in process and the basement over full plot was found constructed.

49. It is further revealed that again show cause notice issued on 30.12.1998 wherein it is revealed that on inspection building was found demolished by Sh. Ramesh & Rajesh who purchased the building from the allottee as disclosed by the man available at the site. The new construction work was in process and the basement over full plot was found constructed. Show cause notice again issued on 31.10.2000 wherein it is revealed that they have sold/ sub letted/ transferred / parted with the possession of the plot to some other person/unit. Plot is used for commercial activities i.e Hotel on 1 st and 2nd floor, shops on G.F. Unauthorised construction has been done. Show cause notice issued on 04.10.2004 wherein it is revealed that you have sold/ sub letted/ transferred / parted with the possession of the plot to some other person/unit. Plot is used for commercial activities i.e Hotel on 1st and 2nd floor, shops on G.F. Unauthorised PPA No. 19/16 23 construction has been done.

50. Letter dated 13.03.2002 issued to M/s Talwar Paint Works by Deputy Director (Indl.) regarding determination of lease deed in respect of plot no. C-212/1, Rewari Line Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi and directions were given to hand over vacant and peaceful possession as they failed to remove the breaches. Noting dated 25.02.2003 issued to Estate Officer by Deputy Director for initiate proceedings under PP Act against C-212/1 M/s Talwar Paint Works. Notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act issued to the M/s Talwar Paint Works. No one received the notice and refused to received the same on 27.02.2003 and the said notice was pasted on the main gate of the building on 28.02.2003 and served through affixation. On 07.03.2003 Sh.Didar Singh was present on behalf of noticee and case was adjourned.

51. On 03.04.2003 Sh. Swaran Singh and Sh. Sarinder Singh were present on behalf of respondent and opportunity were granted to file objection. On 28.04.2003, 08.05.2003 and 19.05.2003 notices under Section 4 (1) 7 (3) of PPA were issued to M/s Talwar Paint Works to produce evidence in support of objection. On 05.01.2004 notice under Section 4 (1) 7 (3) of PPA to M/s Talwar Paints work which was duly affixed on the address. On 20.01.2004 and 12.02.2004 Sh. Didar Singh present on behalf of M/s Talwar Paints Works and sought time. On 26.04.2004 Sh. Didar Singh present on behalf of Talwar Paint Works and submitted reply through P. Chakraborty on behalf of Talwar Paints. Sh. Vijay Yadav appeared on behalf of DDA and submitted the reply.

52. On 29.06.2004 Estate Officer issued a letter to Deputy Director (Indl.) for eviction proceedings against M/s Talwar Paint Works to file reply to the objections filed by respondent. On PPA No. 19/16 24 16.11.2004 Estate Officer issued a letter to Deputy Director to provide list of unauthorized occupants of property, nature of misuse and area under occupation. On 03.12.2004 Sh. S. L. Garg, JE (Indl) filed the inspection report of plot no. 212/1 and details of shop at site and furnished list of unauthorised occupants of property.

53. On 14.12.2004 reply to the objections filed by Deputy Director (Indl.), DDA. Directions were given to issue letter to all unauthorised occupants for 28.01.2005. Notice dated 21.12.2004 under Section 4 of PPA was sent to all occupants namely M/s Guru Kripa Machinery, Varun Traders, Harjeet Singh, Maya Palace Hotel, Vivek Traders and Joginder Lal and Sons for 28.01.2005 which were duly served. Notice U/s.4(1)7(3) of PPA dated 26.08.2005 to produce evidence in support to their objections were again issued to M/s Guru Kripa Machinery, Varun Traders, Harjeet Singh, Maya Palace Hotel, Vivek Traders and Joginer Lal and Sons for 12.09.2005 which were duly served.

54. On 12.09.2005 Sh. Mamohan Grover, Sh. Ravinder Singh, Sh. Harjeet Singh, Sh. Didar Singh and Sh. Vivek Mahajan were present and sought time and case was adjourned for 19.10.2005. On 19.10.2005 case file has been transferred to Deputy Director, LM (West Zone). On 15.12.2005 notice was issued to M/s Talwar Paint Works under Section 4 (1) / 7(3) of PPA to produce evidence in support of objection. On 15.12.2005 notice under Section 4 (1) / 7(3) of PPA was also issued to M/s Guru Kripa Machinery, Varun Traders, Harjeet Singh, Maya Palace Hotel, Vivek Traders and Joginer Lal and Sons for production of evidence which was served and also affixed on the main gate. On 21.03.2006 Sh. Didar Singh, Rajinder Singh and Vivek Gagan were appeared.

PPA No. 19/16 25

55. On 26.10.2006 Sh.Subhash Aggarwal, Vivek Gagan, Didar Singh and Ravinder Singh appeared and they have informed in writing that they have applied for restoration of lease with the industrial branch. On 16.01.2007 Didar Singh written a letter to Estate Officer for giving some time as they had applied to restoration of lease deed. On 07.06.2007 Didar Singh written a letter to Estate Officer for giving some time as they had applied to restoration of lease deed. On 08.08.2007 Sh. Harbans Singh Alagh appeared on behalf of Didar Singh.

56. On 16.08.2007 Satyavir Singh filed Inspection report. On 06.09.2007, Deputy Director Industrial written a letter to Estate Officer mentioning that the breaches / violation of terms and conditions of lease deed are still existing in respect of all the cases pertaining to Rewari Line Industrial Area whereby the lease deed of the plots were already determined. On 24.03.2008 letter issued to Estate Officer, LM (WZ) for initiate eviction proceedings against unauthorized occupants for plot no. C-212/1, Rewari Line, Industrial Area, Delhi. On 25.07.2008 Sh. M. M. Aggarwal appeared on behalf of respondent.

57. On 30.09.2008 Inspection report was filed by Sh.S. K. Sharma, JE/L.S.B of property no. C-223, Rewari Line, Phase-II along with photographs in which it is stated that the premises was sold out to different persons in parts, they used the premises for commercial purpose. On 30.09.2008 Sh. M. M. Aggarwal filed reply / objection to the show-cause notice under Section 4 (1) of PP Act and a copy given to the JE and a copy given to the counsel for respondent. On 19.06.2009 Estate Officer (West ) written a letter to Dy. Director (Indl) submitting that Sh. Didar Singh submitted a submission / representation.

PPA No. 19/16 26

58. On 15.10.2009, Didar Singh written a letter to DDA that Harbans Singh would appear on his behalf for six months. On 21.12.2010 Sh. Didar Singh had intimated that he has written letters to DD (Indl) regarding restoration of lease deed and he is ready to pay misuse charges but till date no action has been taken by DDA (Indl). On 10.03.2011 Estate Officer issued a letter to Deputy Director Indl stating that Didar Singh present on behalf of respondent and intimated that his case is under process and no staff from DDA (Indl) Branch present in spite of issue of several summons. On 13.09.2011 Balbir Singh appeared on behalf of Didar Singh. Thereafter, matter was kept pending before Estate Officer.

59. Notice under Section 4 (1) / 7(3) of PPA dated 15.11.2011, 05.03.2013, 07.01.2014, 04.03.2014, 01.04.2015, 09.07.2015, 23.11.2015 were issued for producing evidence in support which were duly served. On 08.05.2013 Balbir Singh and others written a letter to Director (Industrial), DDA for restoration of plot no. C-212/1, Phase- II, Main Road, Rewari Line, Mayapuri stating that they are ready to pay the mis-use charges against the above said industrial plot and lease be restored. On 14.07.2014 Deputy Director (Indl.) filed inspection report before Estate Officer.

60. On 10.10.2014 Deputy Director (Indl) written a letter to Estate Officer stating that request for restoration of the above referred plot has been examined by the competent authority but the same has not been acceded to. On 11.08.2015 Dy Director (indl) issued to letter to Dy. Director (LM) to provide latest site inspection report with name of occupants floor wise before the court. On 12.07.2016, notice to 55 shops and 1 restaurant were issued. Vide letter dated 04.08.2016, restoration of lease deed were cancelled.

PPA No. 19/16 27

61. Notices dated 28.07.2016 under Section 4 of PPA again issued to respondent Ashok Kumar, Balbir Singh, Kultar Singh and Raj Kumar Gupta which were duly served. Notice dated 28.07.2016 under Section 4 of PPA were also issued to all the unauthorised occupants which were served except locked shops. On 05.08.2016, the respondents were present. The sign list of present unauthorised occupants is kept on record. It is further revealed that letter dated 04.08.2016 issued to Balbir Singh & Others thereby informed that the breaches of the lease deed still exist as per current site inspection report dated 25.08.2015. As such, the lease deed of this plot cannot be acceded to. Hence, eviction order was passed. On 23.08.2016 fifteen unauthorized occupants has attended the court against the notice under Section 4 of PPA issued to all the 56 unauthorized occupants duly received/ pasted at site.

62. Notice under Section 5(1) of PPA issued to Raj Kumar Gupta was duly served. Notice under Section 5 (1) of PPA issued to Ashok Kumar, Balbir Singh, Kartar Singh which were served through affixation. Notice under Section 5 (1) of PPA with detailed eviction order received by 16 shopkeepers and 10 orders were affixed on basement as per order of competent authority. 25 unauthorized shopkeepers received the order and 4 orders were affixed on locked shops. The unauthorized occupants of Maya Palace Guest House not received the orders and as per instruction the eviction order is also affixed on their site. The unauthorised occupants were directed to vacate the premises.

63. Ld. Counsel for appellant taken the ground that impugned order dated 23.08.2016 and diary number dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Estate Officer does not mention how Estate Officer derived the power by the Central Government and not mentioned the grounds of PPA No. 19/16 28 cancellation of lease and failed to decide correctly the regularization of appellant case. The appellant at no point of time has challenged since the issuance of notice under Section 4 of Public Premises Act and Section 5 (1) of Public Premises Act that the Estate Officer is not appointed by Central Government by any notification. The appellant has not challenged before any legal forum with regard to the appointment of Estate officer at any point of time. The Estate Officer has been appointed by authority as per Public Premises Act which has never been challenged.

64. The appellant further raises the issue with regard to determination of cancellation of lease in favour of original allotee M/s Talwar Paint Works. The law is well settled that for eviction under Section 4 PP Act, Estate Officer has to determine whether occupant is occupying the premises under some authority or is an unauthorized occupant. The jurisdiction of Estate officer is confined to find out as to whether the appellant is unauthorized occupant or not and this scope has not been enlarged by High Court in its order or by Supreme Court. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court title Sundri Devi vs. DDA, 2004 (72) DRJ 226.

65. It is pertinent to mention here that it is not the original authority that could assume the function of the prescribed authority by the Estate Officer and consider the decision of competent authority of initiating action against the appellant under Section 4 of PP Act. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court title Madan Lal Jain vs Union Of India, 2003 (103) DLT 416. The law is well settled that any issue regarding the determination / cancellation of lease and initiation of proceedings under Section 4 PP Act does not stand with in the jurisdiction of Estate Officer. Therefore, I find no merit in this plea.

PPA No. 19/16 29

66. The appellant has taken another ground that if a lessee of a Public Premises is allowed to remain in premises even after expiry of the lease and the public authority concerned accept the rent, his occupation become authorised occupation as they become a tenant holding over under Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act. Ld. Counsel for respondent / DDA has referred to the judgment of DDA vs M/s Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). This plea is squarely covered by this judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

Therefore, the DDA vide notice dated 01.09.1972 decided not to renew the lease of the property in question and terminated the lease in respect of the same, though in law the same was not even required on the part of the DDA in view of the conditions of the lease deed as after the expiry of the original period of lease it stands terminated by efflux of time.

In our opinion, the provisions of the Public Premises Act, to the extent they cover premises falling within the ambit of the Rent Control Act and person in authorised occupation of public premises under Section 2 (e) of the Act cannot invoke the protection of Rent Control Act. The transfer of Property Act, 1882 is a general law governing the landlord and the tenant relationship in general. The specific Rent Control Acts are advancement over the Transfer of Property Act, thereby providing more protection to the tenant from arbitrary increase of rent and ejectment from the rented premises by the landlord. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid case law, it can be concluded that the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is not applicable in respect of the public premises. The property in question is public premises by virtue of Section 2 (e) (3) (ii) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971.

PPA No. 19/16 30

67. In view of the well settled principle of law that Transfer of Property Act 1882 is not applicable in respect of Public Premises, the ground taken by the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

68. The Counsel for appellant taken another ground that matter is transferred from one Estate Officer to another Estate Officer. However Estate Officer acted in gross violation of Section 6 (2) of PPA. I have gone through through the Public Premises Act. Section 6 pertains to the disposal of property left on public premises by unauthorized occupant. It does not deal with the transfer of the proceedings. However, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 provides the procedure of transfer of pending proceedings. I have already discussed in detail the proceedings conducted before the Estate Officer. I do not find any violation of Rule 6 (2) by the Estate Officer. Therefore, I do not find merit in the ground taken by the appellant.

69. Ld. Counsel for appellant also taken another ground that no proper enquiry or investigation conducted and no inspection conducted by DDA while passing the order dated 23.08.2016 diary number dated 07.09.2016. The details of the proceedings conducted before Estate Officer as under :-

As per record, perpetual lease deed issued in favour of M/s Talwar Paint Works bearing no. C-212/1, Rewari Line, Industrial Area, Phase-II on 31.01.1974. Show cause notice issued on 20.07.1998 wherein it is revealed that on inspection building was found demolished by Sh. Ramesh & Rajesh who purchased the building from the allottee as disclosed by the man available at the site. The new construction work was in process and the basement over full plot was found constructed.

PPA No. 19/16 31

It is further revealed that again show cause notice issued on 30.12.1998 wherein it is revealed that on inspection building was found demolished by Sh. Ramesh & Rajesh who purchased the building from the allottee as disclosed by the man available at the site. The new construction work was in process and the basement over full plot was found constructed. Show cause notice again issued on 31.10.2000 wherein it is revealed that they have sold/ sub letted/ transferred / parted with the possession of the plot to some other person/unit. Plot is used for commercial activities i.e Hotel on 1st and 2nd floor, shops on G.F. Unauthorised construction has been done. Show cause notice issued on 04.10.2004 wherein it is revealed that you have sold/ sub letted/ transferred / parted with the possession of the plot to some other person/unit. Plot is used for commercial activities i.e Hotel on 1st and 2nd floor, shops on G.F. Unauthorised construction has been done.

Letter dated 13.03.2002 issued to M/s Talwar Paint Works by Deputy Director (Indl.) regarding determination of lease deed in respect of plot no. C-212/1, Rewari Line Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi and directions were given to hand over vacant and peaceful possession as they failed to remove the breaches. Noting dated 25.02.2003 issued to Estate Officer by Deputy Director for initiate proceedings under PP Act against C-212/1 M/s Talwar Paint Works. Notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act issued to the M/s Talwar Paint Works. No one received the notice and refused to received the same on 27.02.2003 and the said notice was pasted on the main gate of the building on PPA No. 19/16 32 28.02.2003 and served through affixation. On 07.03.2003 Sh.Didar Singh was present on behalf of noticee and case was adjourned.

On 03.04.2003 Sh. Swaran Singh and Sh. Sarinder Singh were present on behalf of respondent and opportunity were granted to file objection. On 28.04.2003, 08.05.2003 and 19.05.2003 notices under Section 4 (1) 7 (3) of PPA were issued to M/s Talwar Paint Works to produce evidence in support of objection. On 05.01.2004 notice under Section 4 (1) 7 (3) of PPA to M/s Talwar Paints work which was duly affixed on the address. On 20.01.2004 and 12.02.2004 Sh. Didar Singh present on behalf of M/s Talwar Paints Works and sought time. On 26.04.2004 Sh. Didar Singh present on behalf of Talwar Paint Works and submitted reply through P. Chakraborty on behalf of Talwar Paints.

           Sh. Vijay Yadav appeared on behalf of DDA               and
           submitted the reply.

On 29.06.2004 Estate Officer issued a letter to Deputy Director (Indl.) for eviction proceedings against M/s Talwar Paint Works to file reply to the objections filed by respondent. On 16.11.2004 Estate Officer issued a letter to Deputy Director to provide list of unauthorized occupants of property, nature of misuse and area under occupation. On 03.12.2004 Sh. S. L. Garg, JE (Indl) filed the inspection report of plot no. 212/1 and details of shop at site and furnished list of unauthorised occupants of property.

On 14.12.2004 reply to the objections filed by Deputy Director (Indl.), DDA. Directions were given to issue letter PPA No. 19/16 33 to all unauthorised occupants for 28.01.2005. Notice dated 21.12.2004 under Section 4 of PPA was sent to all occupants namely M/s Guru Kripa Machinery, Varun Traders, Harjeet Singh, Maya Palace Hotel, Vivek Traders and Joginder Lal and Sons for 28.01.2005 which were duly served. Notice U/s.4(1)7(3) of PPA dated 26.08.2005 to produce evidence in support to their objections were again issued to M/s Guru Kripa Machinery, Varun Traders, Harjeet Singh, Maya Palace Hotel, Vivek Traders and Joginer Lal and Sons for 12.09.2005 which were duly served.

On 12.09.2005 Sh. Mamohan Grover, Sh. Ravinder Singh, Sh. Harjeet Singh, Sh. Didar Singh and Sh. Vivek Mahajan were present and sought time and case was adjourned for 19.10.2005. On 19.10.2005 case file has been transferred to Deputy Director, LM (West Zone). On 15.12.2005 notice was issued to M/s Talwar Paint Works under Section 4 (1) / 7(3) of PPA to produce evidence in support of objection. On 15.12.2005 notice under Section 4 (1) / 7(3) of PPA was also issued to M/s Guru Kripa Machinery, Varun Traders, Harjeet Singh, Maya Palace Hotel, Vivek Traders and Joginer Lal and Sons for production of evidence which was served and also affixed on the main gate. On 21.03.2006 Sh. Didar Singh, Rajinder Singh and Vivek Gagan were appeared.

On 26.10.2006 Sh.Subhash Aggarwal, Vivek Gagan, Didar Singh and Ravinder Singh appeared and they have informed in writing that they have applied for restoration of lease with the industrial branch. On 16.01.2007 Didar PPA No. 19/16 34 Singh written a letter to Estate Officer for giving some time as they had applied to restoration of lease deed. On 07.06.2007 Didar Singh written a letter to Estate Officer for giving some time as they had applied to restoration of lease deed. On 08.08.2007 Sh. Harbans Singh Alagh appeared on behalf of Didar Singh.

On 16.08.2007 Satyavir Singh filed Inspection report. On 06.09.2007, Deputy Director Industrial written a letter to Estate Officer mentioning that the breaches / violation of terms and conditions of lease deed are still existing in respect of all the cases pertaining to Rewari Line Industrial Area whereby the lease deed of the plots were already determined. On 24.03.2008 letter issued to Estate Officer, LM (WZ) for initiate eviction proceedings against unauthorized occupants for plot no. C-212/1, Rewari Line, Industrial Area, Delhi. On 25.07.2008 Sh. M. M. Aggarwal appeared on behalf of respondent.

On 30.09.2008 Inspection report was filed by Sh.S. K. Sharma, JE/L.S.B of property no. C-223, Rewari Line, Phase-II along with photographs in which it is stated that the premises was sold out to different persons in parts, they used the premises for commercial purpose. On 30.09.2008 Sh. M. M. Aggarwal filed reply / objection to the show- cause notice under Section 4 (1) of PP Act and a copy given to the JE and a copy given to the counsel for respondent. On 19.06.2009 Estate Officer (West ) written a letter to Dy. Director (Indl) submitting that Sh. Didar Singh submitted a submission / representation.

PPA No. 19/16 35

On 15.10.2009, Didar Singh written a letter to DDA that Harbans Singh would appear on his behalf for six months. On 21.12.2010 Sh. Didar Singh had intimated that he has written letters to DD (Indl) regarding restoration of lease deed and he is ready to pay misuse charges but till date no action has been taken by DDA (Indl). On 10.03.2011 Estate Officer issued a letter to Deputy Director Indl stating that Didar Singh present on behalf of respondent and intimated that his case is under process and no staff from DDA (Indl) Branch present in spite of issue of several summons. On 13.09.2011 Balbir Singh appeared on behalf of Didar Singh. Thereafter, matter was kept pending before Estate Officer.

Notice under Section 4 (1) / 7(3) of PPA dated 15.11.2011, 05.03.2013, 07.01.2014, 04.03.2014, 01.04.2015, 09.07.2015, 23.11.2015 were issued for producing evidence in support which were duly served. On 08.05.2013 Balbir Singh and others written a letter to Director (Industrial), DDA for restoration of plot no. C- 212/1, Phase-II, Main Road, Rewari Line, Mayapuri stating that they are ready to pay the mis-use charges against the above said industrial plot and lease be restored. On 14.07.2014 Deputy Director (Indl.) filed inspection report before Estate Officer.

On 10.10.2014 Deputy Director (Indl) written a letter to Estate Officer stating that request for restoration of the above referred plot has been examined by the competent authority but the same has not been acceded to. On 11.08.2015 Dy Director (indl) issued to letter to Dy. Director (LM) to provide latest site inspection report with PPA No. 19/16 36 name of occupants floor wise before the court. On 12.07.2016, notice to 55 shops and 1 restaurant were issued. Vide letter dated 04.08.2016, restoration of lease deed were cancelled.

Notices dated 28.07.2016 under Section 4 of PPA again issued to respondent Ashok Kumar, Balbir Singh, Kultar Singh and Raj Kumar Gupta which were duly served. Notice dated 28.07.2016 under Section 4 of PPA were also issued to all the unauthorised occupants which were served except locked shops. On 05.08.2016, the respondents were present. The sign list of present unauthorised occupants is kept on record. It is further revealed that letter dated 04.08.2016 issued to Balbir Singh & Others thereby informed that the breaches of the lease deed still exist as per current site inspection report dated 25.08.2015. As such, the lease deed of this plot cannot be acceded to. Hence, eviction order was passed. On 23.08.2016 fifteen unauthorized occupants has attended the court against the notice under Section 4 of PPA issued to all the 56 unauthorized occupants duly received/ pasted at site.

Notice under Section 5(1) of PPA issued to Raj Kumar Gupta was duly served. Notice under Section 5 (1) of PPA issued to Ashok Kumar, Balbir Singh, Kartar Singh which were served through affixation. Notice under Section 5 (1) of PPA with detailed eviction order received by 16 shopkeepers and 10 orders were affixed on basement as per order of competent authority. 25 unauthorized shopkeepers received the order and 4 orders were affixed on locked shops. The unauthorized occupants of Maya PPA No. 19/16 37 Palace Guest House not received the orders and as per instruction the eviction order is also affixed on their site. The unauthorised occupants were directed to vacate the premises.

70. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that Principle of Natural Justice not complied by the Estate Officer and order passed in a mechanical manner. I have already discussed in detail the proceedings conducted by Estate Officer.

As per record, perpetual lease deed issued in favour of M/s Talwar Paint Works bearing no. C-212/1, Rewari Line, Industrial Area, Phase-II on 31.01.1974. Show cause notice issued on 20.07.1998 wherein it is revealed that on inspection building was found demolished by Sh. Ramesh & Rajesh who purchased the building from the allottee as disclosed by the man available at the site. The new construction work was in process and the basement over full plot was found constructed.

It is further revealed that again show cause notice issued on 30.12.1998 wherein it is revealed that on inspection building was found demolished by Sh. Ramesh & Rajesh who purchased the building from the allottee as disclosed by the man available at the site. The new construction work was in process and the basement over full plot was found constructed. Show cause notice again issued on 31.10.2000 wherein it is revealed that they have sold/ sub letted/ transferred / parted with the possession of the plot to some other person/unit. Plot is used for commercial activities i.e Hotel on 1st and 2nd floor, shops on G.F. PPA No. 19/16 38 Unauthorised construction has been done. Show cause notice issued on 04.10.2004 wherein it is revealed that you have sold/ sub letted/ transferred / parted with the possession of the plot to some other person/unit. Plot is used for commercial activities i.e Hotel on 1st and 2nd floor, shops on G.F. Unauthorised construction has been done.

Letter dated 13.03.2002 issued to M/s Talwar Paint Works by Deputy Director (Indl.) regarding determination of lease deed in respect of plot no. C-212/1, Rewari Line Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi and directions were given to hand over vacant and peaceful possession as they failed to remove the breaches. Noting dated 25.02.2003 issued to Estate Officer by Deputy Director for initiate proceedings under PP Act against C-212/1 M/s Talwar Paint Works. Notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act issued to the M/s Talwar Paint Works. No one received the notice and refused to received the same on 27.02.2003 and the said notice was pasted on the main gate of the building on 28.02.2003 and served through affixation. On 07.03.2003 Sh.Didar Singh was present on behalf of noticee and case was adjourned.

On 03.04.2003 Sh. Swaran Singh and Sh. Sarinder Singh were present on behalf of respondent and opportunity were granted to file objection. On 28.04.2003, 08.05.2003 and 19.05.2003 notices under Section 4 (1) 7 (3) of PPA were issued to M/s Talwar Paint Works to produce evidence in support of objection. On 05.01.2004 notice under Section 4 (1) 7 (3) of PPA to M/s Talwar Paints work which was duly affixed on the address. On 20.01.2004 and 12.02.2004 PPA No. 19/16 39 Sh. Didar Singh present on behalf of M/s Talwar Paints Works and sought time. On 26.04.2004 Sh. Didar Singh present on behalf of Talwar Paint Works and submitted reply through P. Chakraborty on behalf of Talwar Paints.

           Sh. Vijay Yadav appeared on behalf of DDA               and
           submitted the reply.

On 14.12.2004 reply to the objections filed by Deputy Director (Indl.), DDA. Directions were given to issue letter to all unauthorised occupants for 28.01.2005. Notice dated 21.12.2004 under Section 4 of PPA was sent to all occupants namely M/s Guru Kripa Machinery, Varun Traders, Harjeet Singh, Maya Palace Hotel, Vivek Traders and Joginder Lal and Sons for 28.01.2005 which were duly served. Notice U/s.4(1)7(3) of PPA dated 26.08.2005 to produce evidence in support to their objections were again issued to M/s Guru Kripa Machinery, Varun Traders, Harjeet Singh, Maya Palace Hotel, Vivek Traders and Joginer Lal and Sons for 12.09.2005 which were duly served.

PPA No. 19/16 40

On 26.10.2006 Sh.Subhash Aggarwal, Vivek Gagan, Didar Singh and Ravinder Singh appeared and they have informed in writing that they have applied for restoration of lease with the industrial branch. On 16.01.2007 Didar Singh written a letter to Estate Officer for giving some time as they had applied to restoration of lease deed. On 07.06.2007 Didar Singh written a letter to Estate Officer for giving some time as they had applied to restoration of lease deed. On 08.08.2007 Sh. Harbans Singh Alagh appeared on behalf of Didar Singh.

On 16.08.2007 Satyavir Singh filed Inspection report. On 06.09.2007, Deputy Director Industrial written a letter to Estate Officer mentioning that the breaches / violation of terms and conditions of lease deed are still existing in PPA No. 19/16 41 respect of all the cases pertaining to Rewari Line Industrial Area whereby the lease deed of the plots were already determined. On 24.03.2008 letter issued to Estate Officer, LM (WZ) for initiate eviction proceedings against unauthorized occupants for plot no. C-212/1, Rewari Line, Industrial Area, Delhi. On 25.07.2008 Sh. M. M. Aggarwal appeared on behalf of respondent.

On 15.10.2009, Didar Singh written a letter to DDA that Harbans Singh would appear on his behalf for six months. On 21.12.2010 Sh. Didar Singh had intimated that he has written letters to DD (Indl) regarding restoration of lease deed and he is ready to pay misuse charges but till date no action has been taken by DDA (Indl). On 10.03.2011 Estate Officer issued a letter to Deputy Director Indl stating that Didar Singh present on behalf of respondent and intimated that his case is under process and no staff from DDA (Indl) Branch present in spite of issue of PPA No. 19/16 42 several summons. On 13.09.2011 Balbir Singh appeared on behalf of Didar Singh. Thereafter, matter was kept pending before Estate Officer.

On 10.10.2014 Deputy Director (Indl) written a letter to Estate Officer stating that request for restoration of the above referred plot has been examined by the competent authority but the same has not been acceded to. On 11.08.2015 Dy Director (indl) issued to letter to Dy. Director (LM) to provide latest site inspection report with name of occupants floor wise before the court. On 12.07.2016, notice to 55 shops and 1 restaurant were issued. Vide letter dated 04.08.2016, restoration of lease deed were cancelled.

Notices dated 28.07.2016 under Section 4 of PPA again issued to respondent Ashok Kumar, Balbir Singh, Kultar Singh and Raj Kumar Gupta which were duly served. Notice dated 28.07.2016 under Section 4 of PPA were also issued to all the unauthorised occupants which were served PPA No. 19/16 43 except locked shops. On 05.08.2016, the respondents were present. The sign list of present unauthorised occupants is kept on record. It is further revealed that letter dated 04.08.2016 issued to Balbir Singh & Others thereby informed that the breaches of the lease deed still exist as per current site inspection report dated 25.08.2015. As such, the lease deed of this plot cannot be acceded to. Hence, eviction order was passed. On 23.08.2016 fifteen unauthorized occupants has attended the court against the notice under Section 4 of PPA issued to all the 56 unauthorized occupants duly received/ pasted at site.

Notice under Section 5(1) of PPA issued to Raj Kumar Gupta was duly served. Notice under Section 5 (1) of PPA issued to Ashok Kumar, Balbir Singh, Kartar Singh which were served through affixation. Notice under Section 5 (1) of PPA with detailed eviction order received by 16 shopkeepers and 10 orders were affixed on basement as per order of competent authority. 25 unauthorized shopkeepers received the order and 4 orders were affixed on locked shops. The unauthorized occupants of Maya Palace Guest House not received the orders and as per instruction the eviction order is also affixed on their site. The unauthorised occupants were directed to vacate the premises.

71. Record as discussed herein above shows that Estate Officer conducted the proceedings as per the principle of natural justice and more than sufficient time of 12 years granted but appellant failed to produce any witness or document as alleged. Appellants taking adjournments through out the trial on the ground that they have PPA No. 19/16 44 applied for restoration of lease deed which never accepted. Therefore, I find no merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for appellant.

72. Now applying the law laid down in DDA vs Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd (supra), it is clear that after determination of lease, the status of original lessee M/s Talwar Paint Works in relation to property in question is that of an unauthorized occupant but he had continued in occupation of the property in question as an unauthorized person in terms of Section 2 (G) of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupant) Act 1971. The record further shows that original lessee not only become unauthorized occupant but time and again he has been found running the following as per inspection as under:-

The plot in question was inspected on 01.12.2004 and inspection report was submitted. As per inspection report, following shops were found running on the site.

1. Shop No.1 M/s Guru Kripa Machinery

2. Shop No.2 M/s Varun Traders

3. Shop No.3 Harjeet Singh

4. Shop/Passage No.4 Maya Palace Hotel.

5. Shop No.5 M/s Vivek Traders

6. Shop No.6 M/s Goginder Lal & Sons, Sh. Gagan Kumar Basement and Ground Floor Inner Side lock at the time of inspection Sh. Didar Singh (Manager of Maya Palace Hotel) was present at the time of Inspection and all shop being used for commercial purpose.

Site was inspected by Satyavir Singh, DDA and inspection report dated 16.08.2007 was filed. Inspected the above said plot and found that the building is constructed on the PPA No. 19/16 45 100% plot area up to third floor to basement where basement was divided into 28 shops for trading of old motor spare parts, ground floor was also divided into 30 shops for the same business as basement. First floor and second floor was being used for "Hotel Maya Palace" with 13 rooms of each floor where the entry from ground floor was being used for reception purpose also. Third floor constructed partially with a room for generator set. Receptionist stated that the owner of Hotel are Sardar Balbir Singh, Kultar Singh and Gurmeet Singh.

The plot in question was inspected by the AE (LSB) Indl and he furnished the inspection report dated 22.04.2013 along with photographs. The details of which are reproduced below:-

"the unit is constructed upto second floor including basement. The floor wise uses are given as under:-

Basement: There are 26 (approx) number of shops of different shopkeepers of old motor spare parts. Ground Floor- Approximately 30 nos. of shops of different shopkeepers of old motor spare parts.

First & Second floors- Hotel Maya is running on First floor and second floor at the time of inspection.

It is stated that all setbacks are covered upto second floor with pucca structure. The status of above inspection report was communicated to the Estate Officer, Land Management (West Zone), DDA vide letter dated 23.12.2013 with request to intimate the status of eviction proceedings No. EV/C-212/1/Rewari Line/Phase-II and necessary action for stopping the breaches being carried out in contravention of MPD-2021 at the earliest. Since as per above inspection report, the breaches of the lease deed were existing, PPA No. 19/16 46 therefore, the request of Shri Balbir Singh & Ors. for restoration of lease deed was rejected and communicated to them vide letter dated 26.12.2013. Since Shri Balbir singh & Ors. Vide letter dated 06.02.2014 had again requested for restoration of plot in question, therefore, the AE (LSB) Indl. again inspected the plot and furnished the inspection report dated 03.06.2014 are reproduced below:- Basement shops exist which are being used for storage of auto parts and bearing of vehicle.

Ground floor partly is being used for trading of auto parts, bearing, chain pulling etc. and partly is being used for reception of "Maya Palace Guest House". First floor is being used for guest house purpose. Second floor partly open to sky and part constructed which is lying vacant at the time of inspection and in the possession of guest house.

The DDA staff again inspected the plot in question and furnished a report dated 20.06.2014 that the occupants of Maya Palace Guest House denied to inspect the plot as there owner was not present at the time of inspection. The DDA field staff/ JE (LSB) Indl. appeared before the court of Estate Officer, West Zone on 11.08.2014 and has furnished a report that the status of ground floor and first floor is same reported by the filed staff on 03.06.2014. Restoration of the lease was again rejected. Site was again Inspected on 25.08.2015 and as per which Basement -26 Nos. shops constructed in basements and using as trading of beairng old parts etc as commercial works.

PPA No. 19/16 47

Ground floor- constructed 29 shops and using as commercial activities i.e. chainpully and bearing trading etc. First floor -constructed 13 rooms and using as "Maya Palace Restaurant" as Commercial Second floor- constructed 13 rooms and lying vacant. Third floor - constructed two room and one toilet. Name of occupants, floor wise was filed for reference. Some shops at basement and ground floor are lying locked.

73. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent DDA initiated the proceedings as per Public Premises Act and after determination of lease of original lessee, it is well settled position of law that person has no right, title or interest in the property and cannot transfer. However, in gross violation original lessee transferred the property. It is pertinent to mention here that during the proceedings before this court also the status report was called and report reflects that there is a gross violation by the original lessee after determination of lease and he remained in unauthorized occupation and possession of the property in question along with other unauthorized occupants.

It is pertinent to mention here that DDA/Respondent proceeded while complying provisions of Public Premises Act and served notice upon respondent under Section 4 PPA Act as well as notice under Section Section 4 (1) 7 (3) of PPA.

As per record, perpetual lease deed issued in favour of M/s Talwar Paint Works bearing no. C-212/1, Rewari Line, Industrial Area, Phase-II on 31.01.1974. Show cause notice issued on 20.07.1998 wherein it is revealed that on inspection building was found demolished by Sh. Ramesh & Rajesh who purchased the building from the allottee as PPA No. 19/16 48 disclosed by the man available at the site. The new construction work was in process and the basement over full plot was found constructed.

It is further revealed that again show cause notice issued on 30.12.1998 wherein it is revealed that on inspection building was found demolished by Sh. Ramesh & Rajesh who purchased the building from the allottee as disclosed by the man available at the site. The new construction work was in process and the basement over full plot was found constructed. Show cause notice again issued on 31.10.2000 wherein it is revealed that they have sold/ sub letted/ transferred / parted with the possession of the plot to some other person/unit. Plot is used for commercial activities i.e Hotel on 1st and 2nd floor, shops on G.F. Unauthorised construction has been done. Show cause notice issued on 04.10.2004 wherein it is revealed that you have sold/ sub letted/ transferred / parted with the possession of the plot to some other person/unit. Plot is used for commercial activities i.e Hotel on 1st and 2nd floor, shops on G.F. Unauthorised construction has been done.

Notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act issued to the M/s Talwar Paint Works. No one received the notice and refused to received the same on 27.02.2003 and the said notice was pasted on the main gate of the building on 28.02.2003 and served through affixation. On 07.03.2003 Sh.Didar Singh was present on behalf of noticee and case was adjourned.

On 28.04.2003, 08.05.2003 and 19.05.2003 notices under Section 4 (1) 7 (3) of PPA were issued to M/s Talwar Paint PPA No. 19/16 49 Works to produce evidence in support of objection. On 05.01.2004 notice under Section 4 (1) 7 (3) of PPA to M/s Talwar Paints work which was duly affixed on the address. On 20.01.2004 and 12.02.2004 Sh. Didar Singh present on behalf of M/s Talwar Paints Works and sought time. On 26.04.2004 Sh. Didar Singh present on behalf of Talwar Paint Works and submitted reply through P. Chakraborty on behalf of Talwar Paints. Sh. Vijay Yadav appeared on behalf of DDA and submitted the reply.

Notice dated 21.12.2004 under Section 4 of PPA was sent to all occupants namely M/s Guru Kripa Machinery, Varun Traders, Harjeet Singh, Maya Palace Hotel, Vivek Traders and Joginder Lal and Sons for 28.01.2005 which were duly served. Notice U/s.4(1)7(3) of PPA dated 26.08.2005 to produce evidence in support to their objections were again issued to M/s Guru Kripa Machinery, Varun Traders, Harjeet Singh, Maya Palace Hotel, Vivek Traders and Joginer Lal and Sons for 12.09.2005 which were duly served.

On 15.12.2005 notice was issued to M/s Talwar Paint Works under Section 4 (1) / 7(3) of PPA to produce evidence in support of objection. On 15.12.2005 notice under Section 4 (1) / 7(3) of PPA was also issued to M/s Guru Kripa Machinery, Varun Traders, Harjeet Singh, Maya Palace Hotel, Vivek Traders and Joginer Lal and Sons for production of evidence which was served and also affixed on the main gate. On 21.03.2006 Sh. Didar Singh, Rajinder Singh and Vivek Gagan were appeared.

PPA No. 19/16 50

On 26.10.2006 Sh.Subhash Aggarwal, Vivek Gagan, Didar Singh and Ravinder Singh appeared and they have informed in writing that they have applied for restoration of lease with the industrial branch. On 16.01.2007 Didar Singh written a letter to Estate Officer for giving some time as they had applied to restoration of lease deed. On 07.06.2007 Didar Singh written a letter to Estate Officer for giving some time as they had applied to restoration of lease deed. On 08.08.2007 Sh. Harbans Singh Alagh appeared on behalf of Didar Singh.

PPA No. 19/16 51

Notice under Section 5(1) of PPA issued to Raj Kumar Gupta was duly served. Notice under Section 5 (1) of PPA issued to Ashok Kumar, Balbir Singh, Kartar Singh which were served through affixation. Notice under Section 5 (1) of PPA with detailed eviction order received by 16 shopkeepers and 10 orders were affixed on basement as per order of competent authority. 25 unauthorized shopkeepers received the order and 4 orders were affixed on locked shops. The unauthorized occupants of Maya Palace Guest House not received the orders and as per instruction the eviction order is also affixed on their site. The unauthorised occupants were directed to vacate the premises.

74. The appellant given more than 12 years time before Estate Officer but they failed to establish that after determination of lease, original lessee is not an unauthorized occupant and did not violate the terms and conditions of the original lease. Appellants taking adjournments on the ground that they have applied for restoration of lease deed. Restoration of lease deed was rejected on inspection of site as mentioned above. Ld. Counsel for appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court 'Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra)'. I have gone through the judgment. This judgment is distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The law is well settled as discussed herein above in the judgment title DDA vs Anant Raj Agencies (supra) that after determination of lease, original lessee i.e. M/s Talwar Paints Works has no right, title or interest in the property. Therefore, any transaction by M/s Talwar Paints is without any legal right.

PPA No. 19/16 52

75. Ld. Counsel for appellant has further relied upon the judgment of Damayanti Verma (Deceased) through her LRs (supra). In this judgment, a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was sent to the allottee. Thereafter, eviction proceedings were initiated by the Estate Officer, however, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the judgment of DDA vs Anant Raj Agencies (supra), Transfer of the Property Act has no role to play. It is pertinent to mention here that the DDA acted in most honest fair and generous manner and for 12 years several opportunities granted to the appellant.

76. It is pertinent to mention here that on the plea of appellant that he has applied for regularization in view of advertisement and policy dated 22.04.2014 & 31.03.2008 and public notice for DDA Camps, appellant deposited Rs.25,82,789/- for conversion charges along with convertion application. On this plea, status report was called. Status report dated 01.06.2022 was filed as per which administrative decision of Vice Chairman of DDA after convening High Level Meeting dated 29.10.2021 placed on record with regard to restoration of lease and it was recommended that lease cannot be restored as eviction order has already been passed in favour of DDA. It is further admitted that the deposition of Rs.25,82,789/- unilaterally by the appellant and never demanded by the DDA. It is pertinent to mention here that as discussed herein above restoration application of lease deed in respect of property no.C-212/1, Rewari Line Industrial Area, Phase-II has been duly rejected on 23.11.2021 as the property was found still under misuse. In my considered opinion, impugned order dated 23.08.2016 and diary number dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Estate Officer does not suffer any error or illegality. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

PPA No. 19/16 53

77. The appellant remained in unauthorized occupation of property in question for about 48 years without any right, title or interest. Appellants have been unlawfully enjoying the public property and unlawfully rich themselves against the public interest. However, the officials of DDA just become spectator and no timely action has been initiated. It is pertinent to mention here that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Rules envisaged speedy and summary proceedings against unauthorized occupants of public premises, however, in the present case Estate officer has taken 12 years which is the against letter and spirit of Public Premises Act and Rules. The amount of Rs.25,82,789/- deposited by the appellants shall be refunded after necessary and due adjustments and recovery of damages as per law.

78. It is directed that DDA shall take all legal action immediately to stop unlawful enrichment of the appellants against the public interest as per law.

79. It is further directed that DDA may issue administrative direction as per law for conducting speedy and summary proceedings before the Estate Officer and frame a time line for conclusion of proceedings may be by six months.

80. Record of Estate Officer be sent back.

81. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.

82. Copy of this order be sent to Vice Chairman and Chief Legal Advisor, DDA for compliance.

Announced in the open Court             ( SANJAY KUMAR)
on 24th September 2022           Principal District & Sessions Judge
                                 (West) Tis Hazari Courts:
                                 Delhi/24.09.2022

PPA No. 19/16                                                        54

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Sh. Balbir Singh vs Delhi Development Authority (Through ... on 24 September, 2022