Delhi District Court
Roshanara Club Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NAROTTAM KAUSHAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR NO. DLCT010057392023
PPA NO. 07/2023
ROSHNARA CLUB LIMITED
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
ROSHNARA ROAD
DELHI110 006
....APPELLANT
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN/ESTATE OFFICER
CENTRAL ZONE, A BLOCK, VIKAS SADAN
INA, DELHI110 023
....RESONDENT
Date of filing :25.04.2023
First date before this court: 26.04.2023
Arguments concluded on :10.08.2023
Date of Pronouncement :25.09.2023
APPEARANCE : Sh.Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate with
Sh. Manish Aggarwal, Sh. Nitin Ahlawat and Sh. Laltaksh Joshi, counsels for appellant
Sh. Anupam Sharma, counsel for respondent
PPA no.07/2023
Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 1 of 19 pages
JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is directed against order dated 12.04.2023 passed by Estate Officer, LM/CZ, DDA directing the present appellant and all the concerned persons in unauthorised occupancy of the public premises or part thereof to vacate the same within 15 days from the date of order.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that by way of two separate lease deeds dated 07.07.1923 and 03.04.1928 executed by Secretary of State for India in Council, two parcels of land measuring 51062 sq. yards and 61688 sq. yards respectively, were allotted on annual rent basis to Roshnara Club Limited for a period of 30 years each. Both the lease deeds were subsequently renewed twice for a period of 30 year each i.e. 60 years. In respect of the first parcel of land, on the expiry of 90 years yet another extension was allowed upto 30.04.2013. There was no extension as regards the second parcel of land. The lease was not extended beyond 31.12.2017.
2.1 The lease period having already expired and no renewal having been allowed, as was not permissible under the lease deed; DDA initiated proceedings for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PP Act').
PPA no.07/2023Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 2 of 19 pages
3. Notice of the proceedings under Section 4(2) of the PP Act was issued and served upon the Roshnara Club Limited. In response to the notice, its representatives appeared before the Estate Officer and were afforded an opportunity to show cause as to why the club should not be evicted from the public land. Representatives of the club who appeared before the Estate Officer stated that their representation/requests for renewal of lease were under consideration. An opportunity was afforded to them to file a reply. Though, no formal reply was filed; however, set of documents running into 143 pages were filed which were primarily letters, communications, representations to various authorities seeking extension of lease. The compilation of documents also contained receipts of deposit of property tax etc.
4. Considering the rival claims, Estate Officer vide the impugned order observed, on the strength of documents and communications that the lease in favour of the club expired on 30.04.2013 and 31.12.2017 respectively. The lease deeds were never renewed after the aforesaid dates. In the absence of renewal in favour of the club, the occupation had become unauthorised. Thus, the occupation of the club through its office bearers was held to be unauthorised with no right or title over the public premises, noticees were held liable to be evicted and their eviction was accordingly ordered. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present appeal was preferred.
PPA no.07/2023Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 3 of 19 pages
5. I have heard learned counsels for both parties and also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of both.
6. Sh. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sh. Manish Aggarwal, Sh. Nitin Ahlawat and Sh. Laltaksh Joshi, Advocates have raised the following arguments:
(i) Violation of the Principals of Natural Justice: It is argued that the matter came up before the Estate Officer last for hearing on 05.04.2023 when the matter was adjourned to 25.04.2023 affording time to the DDA to provide comments regarding status of appellant's representations. However, without waiting for the DDA to respond, Estate Officer passed the impugned order on 12.04.2023. In support of this argument, appellant has placed reliance upon law laid down in Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) 14528/2021 decided on 14.01.2022; Mahadayal Premchandra vs. Commercal Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors., Appeal (Civil) 344/2017 decided on 15.04.1958 ;
Bela Sethi vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. WP(C) no. 6321/2018 decided on 06.09.2018; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nusli Neville Wadia & Another, Appeal (Civil) 5879/2007 decided on 13.12.2007.
(ii) Legitimate Expection: It is argued that the matter of renewal of the lease was under
consideration before the competent authorities and Estate Officer PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 4 of 19 pages should not have precipitated the situation by passing the impugned order, without waiting for the outcome of pending representations for extension of lease. Reliance has been placed upon law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Ors vs. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), 2022 INSC 452 and law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Patna in The Bihar Offset Printers Association & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors, 2022 (2) BLJ 595
(iii) Applicability of the Public Premises Act: It is argued that the Statute is prospective in its application.
The Act which was enacted on 23.08.1971 had come into force from 16.09.1958 and the tenants/occupants who came into possession prior to coming into force of the Statute were not governed by this Act. Reliance has been placed upon law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhas H. Pophle vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
(2014) 4 SCC 657 and Band Box Private Limited vs. Estate Officer, Punjab & Sindh Bank & Ors., (2014) 16 SCC 321.
(iv) Procedure not followed: It is argued that the Estate Officer had not afforded opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence in support of its case as is the mandate in the procedure enacted under Section 4(2) of the Act.
7. Appeal has been strongly contested and each ground has been strongly refuted by Sh. Anupam Sharma, counsel for respondent DDA. It is submitted that the procedure as prescribed under the PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 5 of 19 pages Statute was duly followed. A show cause notice under Section 4(2) of the Act was served. Opportunity of hearing was afforded. Representatives of the appellant club made submissions which were recorded in the proceeding sheets on each date of hearing. Only prayer made by the appellant in its short reply dated 20.02.2023 was to keep the proceedings in abeyance till final decision is taken in its representations for extension/renewal/formation of policy in respect of land allotted to the club. However, the Estate Officer could not have kept the proceedings in abeyance as the provision of PP Act do not permit the same. It is argued that the representatives of the appellant had mislead the Estate Officer by stating that their representation for extension was pending whereas the same already stood declined vide communication dated 07.05.2018. Therefore, finding no reason to seek an explanation from the concerned branch of DDA, Estate Officer concluded the proceedings on 12.04.2023 keeping the letter and spirit of the statute in mind.
8. It is next argued that despite all the opportunities provided by the Estate Officer to the appellant, it failed to file any objections to the notice or produce any evidence to justify its occupation. Appellant had also not sought any permission to lead any evidence or examine any witness. Reliance has been placed upon law laid down by Hon'ble High Court in B.K. Bhagat vs. North Delhi Municipal Council, 2015 SCC Online Del 9629.
9. Sh. Sharma has also argued that the argument of learned counsel for the appellant as regards the legitimate expectation of PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 6 of 19 pages lease being renewed was not available before the Estate Officer as the appellant had already been informed about rejection of its prayer for extension of lease vide communication dated 07.05.2018.
10. To counter the argument of appellant that PP Act was not applicable to occupants who were in possession of premises prior to 16.09.1958; it is argued by Sh. Sharma that the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhas S. Pophle (supra) subsequently followed in Band Box Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts in the present case. Cited cases laid down law with respect to public premises belonging to government companies or corporations and not with respect to land which vested in the government. It was argued that the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhas C Pophle (supra) has already been referred to a larger bench for reconsideration. Relying upon law laid down by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in M/s. B.C. Shaw & Sons vs. Union of India, in WP(C) 15067/2014 decided on 16.09.2014 it is argued that law laid down in Suhas C Pophle (supra) has no application in cases where the tenancy/lease, in respect of public premises belonging to Central Government, which had come into existence prior to 16.09.1958. Reliance has also been placed upon law laid down in by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sunil Kumar & Anr. vs. Delhi Development Authority, 2018 SCC Online Del 6929.
11. Refuting the arguments of Sh. Sindhwani learned Senior Advocate that procedure as envisaged under Section 4 of the PP Act PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 7 of 19 pages affording opportunity to lead evidence has not been followed, it is submitted by Sh. Sharma that there is no such requirement of leading evidence in cases where the noticee is under evident and apparent unauthorised occupation. The requirement of leading evidence is only in cases where grounds for eviction, for example like that of bonafide personal necessity, is required to be established.
12. It is thus argued by Sh. Sharma that the appeal is meritless and ought to be dismissed with costs.
13. I shall deal with the arguments raised by both the learned counsels under the, subheads, as seen from the arguments of Senior Advocate Sh. Sindhwani.
(i) Violation of the Principals of Natural Justice:
14. Section 4 of the PP Act envisages issuance of notice to an unauthorized occupant, to show cause against an order of eviction. The notice is required to specify the grounds on which eviction if proposed to be made. The manner of service of notice is provided under section 4 of the Act. Section 4 (2)(b)(ii) of the Act provides right to the noticee to appear before the Estate Officer alongwith the evidence intended to be produced in support of the cause shown and also seek personal hearing if so desired.
PPA no.07/2023Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 8 of 19 pages
15. Admittedly, in the present case notice was issued and served upon the representatives of the club who entered appearance before the Estate Officer on each of the dates of hearing so fixed. Further the noticees were afforded opportunity to file reply. A study of the proceedings indicate that Sh. Rajan Manchanda, Honorary Secretary of the Club, Sh. Manish Aggarwal, President and Sh. Angad Pal Singh, Vice President of the Club appeared before the Estate Officer on 03.02.2023. It was submitted that their request for renewal beyond 90 years was pending and they were under the impression that they had been called for extension of the lease. However, they sought time to trace the original lease deeds. They were afforded time to file a reply on or before 21.02.2023. On the next date fixed i.e. 21.02.2023, they submitted the reply running into 143 pages. A study of the spirally bound volume of 143 pages reveals that there is no formal reply. However, only copies of lease deeds, communications from the club to various authorities seeking extension of lease and certain receipts of payment of property tax were submitted. It is further recorded in the proceedings that the representatives of the club stated that their request dated 11.09.2018 and 16.01.2019 addressed to VC, DDA for renewal of expired lease deeds was under consideration with the Old Scheme Branch of DDA (hereinafter to be referred as 'OSB'). None had appeared on behalf of OSB on the said date of hearing; therefore comments from OSB were sought. The next date of hearing was directed to be fixed after receiving the comments from OSB. A perusal of the record further reveals that letter dated 24.02.2023 was received from the Deputy Director, OSB intimating that representations had already been PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 9 of 19 pages rejected and communicated vide letter dated 07.05.2018. Hearing was scheduled for 24.03.2023. Representatives of club admitted having received the letter dated 07.05.2018 but stated that they had filed yet more representations which were under consideration as communicated to them vide letter dated 11.09.2018. The Estate Officer, therefore, kept the matter for 05.04.2023 seeking comments from OSB again. On 05.04.2023, no communication having been received from OSB in furtherance of its letter dated 11.09.2018, the matter was kept for 25.04.2023 to provide status of club's representation dated 02.08.2018. A study of the file further reveals that letter addressed to OSB to provide status of the representation of the club dated 02.08.2018 was prepared and put up for the signatures of Estate Officer on 11.04.2023. However, no such letter was issued. Rather on the 12.04.2023, the eviction order was prepared and put up for signatures of the Estate Officer.
16. Sh. Sindhwani has impugned these proceedings on two counts. Firstly, that the hearing scheduled for 25.04.2023 was not awaited and the order was passed on 12.04.2023 itself. Secondly, the proceedings record that eviction order had been prepared and the Estate Officer was required to sign on dotted lines. As regards the latter submission, Sh. Sharma has explained and demonstrated from the file that the proceedings and communications were on each date of hearing prepared or written by a staff member from the office of Estate Officer and the notings, formal orders and communications were thereafter signed by the Estate Officer. Therefore, this court does not find any illegality or irregularity or any malafide in the PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 10 of 19 pages manner the draft order was put up before the Estate Officer, who signed the same. However, as regards the first argument that the date of 25.04.2023 was not awaited and opportunity was no afforded to OSB branch to communicate its examination of representation dated 02.08.2018; this court is of the opinion that denial of opportunity, if any, was to DDA and not to appellant. Moreover, the impugned order explains and justifies the closure of opportunity. Representation for extension of lease had already been rejected and communicated to the club vide its letter dated 07.05.2018. Subsequent representations made with the same prayer before the same authority, would not be a justifiable cause for the Estate Officer to prolong the proceeding; unless he was communicated by the competent authority to drop the eviction proceedings. Representations had been made by the club to VC, DDA seeking extension of lease. Proceedings before the Estate Officer had also been commenced by DDA through the concerned branch of DDA, ostensibly under the aegis and direction of VC, DDA. Had there been any reconsideration on the stand of DDA as regards extension of lease, the competent authority would have communicated to the Estate Officer to drop the proceedings. I find merit in the submission of Sh. Sharma, counsel for DDA that proceedings could not have been kept in abeyance by the Estate Officer, awaiting disposal of representation by the club with the same prayer and on the same grounds. Therefore this court is of the opinion that appellant cannot successfully argue that principals of natural justice were violated.
PPA no.07/2023Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 11 of 19 pages
16.1 Another argument raised by Sh. Sindhwani is that the
Estate Officer in its order does not refer to the reply of the club running into 143 pages. As noticed above there is no formal reply to the show cause notice. The compilation running into 143 pages is primarily compendium of letters by the club to various authorities namely LG, Sh. Kapil Sibbal, Minister HRD, Sh. Kamal Nath, Minister Urban Development, Sh. Arun Jaitley, Minister of Finance, Sh. Hardeep Singh Puri, Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs, VC, DDA, Sh. Harshvardhan, etc. These are all requests by club for extension of its lease from periods varying from 13.04.2012 till the February of 2023. Though, the Estate Officer has not dealt with each of these communications/letters; yet, he has referred to communication dated 07.05.2018 vide which the appellant's prayer for renewal of lease deed had been turned down. This court does not find any merit in this argument as well. This court has also gone through the judgments relied upon by Sh. Sindhwani and does not find the same to be applicable to the facts of the present case. In Bela Sethi's case (supra), NDMC had cancelled the mutation of a property in favour of the petitioner without issuing show cause notice to him, the court rightly held that principals of natural justice had been violated. However, in the present case appellant was served the notice and was given an opportunity to contest the same and file reply. In Mahadayal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that the Commercial Tax Officer had followed the instructions conveyed to him by the Assistant Commissioner without giving appellant an opportunity to yield the points urged against him. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that there were any PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 12 of 19 pages instructions issued to the Estate Officer to pass the impugned order. Reference to the facts put up before him by the OSB branch of DDA cannot be said to be issuance of any instructions to pass the impugned order. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the law laid down in Mahadayal's case (supra) does not help the appellant.
16.2 In Bharat Alluminium Company's case (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court noticed that no show cause notice, as mandatorily required under Section 144B(1)(xvi) of the Income Act, had been served upon the petitioner. However, in the present case notice under Section 4(2) of the PP Act stood served upon the appellant. Therefore, there is no violation of principals of natural justice. The judgments so relied upon by the appellant do not help its case.
(ii) Legitimate Expection:
17. The argument of Sh. Sindhwani that the Estate Officer should have kept the matter in abeyance and waited for the natural outcome of appellant's representations seeking extension of lease or change in policy, does not impress this court. The lease deeds had expired way back in 2013 and 2017. Representations after representations had been turned down. The last such communication had been conveyed to the appellant on 07.05.2018. As noticed in para above there had been no communication from the DDA to the Estate Officer not to proceed with the eviction proceedings. The PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 13 of 19 pages Estate Officer was statutorily bound to proceed with the case and dispose it of. As regards the arguments of Sh. Sindhwani that lease deeds of other clubs similarly expired by eflux of time had been renewed has been answered by Sh. Anupam Sharma, counsel for DDA. He stated that said clubs were under the control of Delhi Government, L&DO Branch and not under DDA. I also find merit in the submissions of Sh. Sharma that the argument of legitimate expectation would be available to the appellants before the competent authorities to seek renewal of the lease and the same was not available before the Estate Officer. Reliance by Sh. Sindhwani on law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of West Bengal & Ors vs. Gitashree Dutta (Dey) case (supra) and by Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of The Bihar Offset Printers Association & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors, (supra) does not help the appellant as the Estate Officer could not have stopped the proceedings on his own or kept the proceedings in abeyance, merely because yet another representation of the appellant for extension of lease was pending before the competent authority.
(iii) Applicability of the Public Premises Act:
18. On the strength of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suhas P. Pophle's case (supra) followed in Band Box Private Limited's case (supra), Sh. Sindhwani, learned Senior Counsel has argued that Public Premises Act cannot be applied to premises where occupants came in possession thereof, prior to PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 14 of 19 pages notification of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 or its predecessor Act which came into existence in 16.09.1958. These provisions cannot be invoked to seek possession from the appellants who were in possession of a part of land since 1923 and in the other part since 1930. Sh. Anupam Sharma, learned counsel for respondent has refuted this argument by submitting that both the cited cases referred to eviction sought by Public Corporations which had come into existence subsequent to enactment of the Public Premises Act. The public authorities thus became owners of the premises subsequent to enactment of the PP Act; whereas in the present case, the premises had always belonged to the State as the lease deed had itself been executed by the Secretary of State of India in Council. Sh. Sharma has relied upon law laid down in B.C. Shaw & Sons case (supra) to submit that the judgments cited by Sh. Sindhwani, learned counsel for appellant do not apply to tenancies in respect of public premises belonging to the Central Government, which came into existence prior to 16.09.1958. For ready reference relevant portion of the para 17 & 18 of the said judgment are reproduced herein below:
17. I have not been able to locate any law laid down in Suhas H. Pophale (supra) to the extent that the 1971 Act would have no application in cases where the tenancy/lease in respect of 'public premises' belonging to the Central Government came into existence prior to September 16, 1958. That was really not an issue there and it is axiomatic that the fact situation did not warrant such a finding being returned in that regard.
PPA no.07/2023Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 15 of 19 pages
18. Now, adverting attention to paragraph 64 of the decision in Suhas H. Pophale (supra), it is noticed that the two categories of occupants for whom exclusion of coverage of the 1971 Act has been adumbrated therein are the "occupants of (sic premises of) these public corporations", and not the occupants of premises belonging to the Central Government. It is settled by a catena of judicial pronouncements that a line here or there in a judgment of a superior court need not be read as a statute. In fact in the said decision the learned Judge referred to the oftquoted saying that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. The Supreme Court carved out exceptions applicable to public premises belonging to public corporations, which cannot be extended to public premises belonging to the Central Government. The decision in Suhas H. Pophale (supra) is clearly distinguishable and does not, therefore, aid the petitioner.
18.1 Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sunil Kumar's case (supra) where court was of the view that Suhas H. Pophle's case (supra) was applicable to cases where the tenancies had been created by private persons in respect of private properties, though subsequently acquired by public corporations. For ready reference para 51 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below:
"Reliance placed by the appellants and writ petitioners on Dr. Suhas H. Pophale (supra) is misplaced. In Dr. Suhas H. Pophale (supra), the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the tenancy, at its inception, was created by a private person in respect of private property, which property was subsequently acquired by the Government. However, facts of these cases show that subject properties were Government properties from the inception, i.e. at the time of grant of lease to the Societies, and continued to remain so. Dr. Suhas H. Pophale (supra) is, therefore, not relevant for this reason."PPA no.07/2023
Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 16 of 19 pages
18.2 Hon'ble Division Bench further dealing with DDA land
held that DRC Act exempted from its operation Government land and though the DDA came into force from 30.12.1957; however, the properties which vested in the Government came to be vested and governed by DDA. For ready reference para 45 of the said judgment is also reproduced herein below: "After DD Act came into force on 30.12.1957, all the properties belonging to DIT, by virtue of Section 60 of DD Act, came to vest and governed by the DDA.
Therefore, in the year 1957 when the DD Act came into force, the lands in question came to vest in DDA and the property continued to be the Government property. As aforesaid, Section 3(a) of DRC Act clearly exempts from the operation of DRC Act any property belonging to the Government."
Thus, this court is of the opinion that Public Premises Act (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is applicable in the fact position of the present case.
(iv) Procedure not followed:
19. Sh. Sindhwani has next argued that Estate Officer did not follow the procedure prescribed and did not afford opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Reference has been made to the case of New India Assurance (supra) and it is argued that recording of evidence was a prerequisite before passing the impugned order. Sh. Sharma refuting the aforesaid argument has argued first that there was no such opportunity sought. Secondly, the statute envisages PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 17 of 19 pages leading of evidence only when the right of public authority to seek possession is required to be established. Referring to argument raised by Sh. Fali S. Nariman as contained in para 12 of the aforesaid judgment, it is argued that no evidence is required to be led in cases where the possession is patently unauthorized.
19.1 In the present case lease had expired by eflux of time and prayer for extension of lease having already been declined, appellant was patently and evidently in unauthorized occupation of the public premises. There was no evidence required to be led by the public authority i.e. DDA to establish its right to recover the possession. A perusal of the relevant stipulation in lease deeds/renewal thereof, reveals that the possession vested in DDA after expiry of the lease. It was not incumbent upon the DDA to establish its right to occupy the premises or to seek eviction of the noticee as was the fact situation in New India Assurance (supra) where New India Assurance Company or the lessor was required to establish that it needed the premises for its bonafide needs. The lease agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent clearly indicates that on expiration or determination of the lease, the lessee shall peaceably hand over possession of the premises to the lessor. For ready reference relevant portion of para 5 of the lease deed dated 22.04.1928 is reproduced herein below: "The lessee will on expiration or sooner determination of the said term peaceably yield up the said demised premises together with any building erected or works constructed thereon unto the lessor; provided that the lessor may on the expiry or sooner determination of the lease, take over such PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 18 of 19 pages buildings or works or any of them, at a valuation if he so wishes otherwise the lessee has the right to remove them at his own cost. Provided, further in consideration of the land having been leased free of initial premium, that if during the period of the lease, the premises are required for a public purpose, compensation shall be payable only for the buildings or works standing on the land at the time and not for the land itself, and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi as to the amount of such compensation shall be final and conclusive as against the lessee."
19.2 Reference can also be made to para 8 of the last renewal of the lease deed dated 01.01.1998 wherein it was clearly stipulated that it was the last and the final extension. Therefore any argument of legitimate expectation does not carry weight as the appellant knew at the time of third extension way back in 1983/1987 that the lease are not to be extended any further.
20. For the reasons noted above, this court is of the opinion that the present appeal is absolutely meritless. There being no illegality,infirmity or irregularity in the proceedings adopted by the Estate Officer or the passed thereon the eviction order is upheld and appeal is dismissed.
21. Record of Estate Officer be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment. File be consigned to records.
Digitally signed
NAROTTAM by NAROTTAM
Announced in the open court on KAUSHAL
KAUSHAL
Date: 2023.09.26
this 25th day of September, 2023 12:14:05 +0530
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi PPA no.07/2023 Roshnara Club Ltd. vs. DDA Page 19 of 19 pages