Delhi District Court
Sunil Chanana And Anr vs Delhi Development Authority Anr on 9 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PREM KUMAR BARTHWAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-003294-2016
PPA No. 16/2016
1. Sh. Sunil Chanana
S/o Sh. Harish Kumar Chanana
2. Sh. Ajay Chanana
S/o Sh. Harish Kumar Chanana
Both R/o House No. 53, Tagore Park
Delhi-110009. ...Appellants
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
2. Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Estate Officer, North Zone,
Delhi Development Authority,
LSC, LU Block, Pitampura, Delhi. ...Respondents
Date of institution : 22.02.2016
Date of arguments : 11.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 09.01.2026
Appearance :
Sh. Vikas Khatri, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Tarun Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents/DDA.
JUDGMENT
1. Appellate jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as "PP Act"), against the impugned PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 1 of 19 Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:17:13 +0530 Order bearing No. EV/B-10/CC/Mukherjee Nagar/03/66 dated 19.01.2016 whereby the learned Estate Officer/Respondent No. 2 has passed eviction order in respect of property/plot No. B-10, CC, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred as "Public Premises").
2. An application under section 9(2) of PP Act r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed alongwith instant appeal to condone 13 days delay in filing the present appeal. In the case of Santosh & Ors. Vs. Shri Tek Chand, 134(2006) DLT 332, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that, "rules of procedure are handmaiden to the end of justice and should not be permitted to effect substantial justice." Keeping in view the fact that the matter ought to be decided on merits and not on technical ground, the circumstances, which have been shown, need to be considered leniently. Taking a liberal view, and in the larger interest of justice, the application for condonation of delay is allowed, and the delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned.
3. The brief facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that the Plot No. B-10, CC, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi was allotted to Shri Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni vide Perpetual Lease Deed dt. 18.02.1977 and that basement, ground floor, mezzanine floor and first floor was constructed on the said plot. According to the appellant, the said original allottee had sold the said premises to Shri Leela Nath Maini in 1980 and thereafter the said property was sold and resold to different persons.
4. It is submitted that the appellants have one shop on the front side on main road in the above-said property and the said shop is in PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 2 of 19 Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:17:20 +0530 possession of ICICI Bank on lease and ICICI Bank has installed Automated Teller Machine (ATM) in the abovesaid shop of the appellants. It is further submitted that the lease of ICICI Bank in the abovesaid shop is valid up to 21.12.2017. It is contended that Shri Gajraj has two shops in the ground floor of public premises and same are situated in the backside of the abovesaid property while the mezzanine floor is on lease to Bank of Maharashtra and there is no misuser in respect of the public premises.
5. It is submitted that the original allottee Shri Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni have sold the public premises in the year 1980 to Sh. Leela Nath Maini and thereafter, it was resold multiple time to different occupants/persons. The appellants Sunil Chanana and Sh. Ajay Chanana purchased a shop in 2008 from Subhash Chander and his wife Smt. Kanta and ICICI Bank was already a tenant in respect of the said shop. The appellants Shri Sunil Chanana and Shri Ajay Chanana claimed they never received any notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and only came to know of the eviction order dated 19.01.2016 after it was served on another occupant/appellant Mr. Gajraj.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have preferred the present appeals on the grounds amongst other that no show cause notice under section 4 was ever served upon them; no notice or summons under section 5 was issued for eviction proceedings and the impugned eviction order is exparte, passed without opportunity of being heard. The appellants are bona fide purchasers without knowledge of cancellation of lease or pending proceedings and that PPA No. 16/2016 Digitally Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 3 of 19 signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:17:25 +0530 they were never informed by sellers Mr. Subhash Chander and his wife Smt. Kanta that the lease/allotment of the said premises was lying cancelled. It is submitted that the appellants are approaching the DDA for restoration of allotment/lease and for depositing the arrears of ground rent etc. It is contended that the respondent no. 1/ DDA had never issued any notice to the appellants regarding non-payment of the ground rent for the period 20.07.1979 to 14.07.1993. The appellants have prayed that impugned order dt. 19.01.2016 passed by respondent No. 2 be set aside.
7. The respondent No. 1 filed reply to the appeal contending that the present appeal is not maintainable as the appellants are unauthorized occupants and appellants have no locus standi to file the present appeal. It is submitted that the said plot / public premises was purchased by Sh. Sita Ram in auction, conducted by MCD, for Rs.40,500/- vide lease deed registered on 18.02.1977. Subsequently, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Works & Housing (Land Division) vide letter no. J-1019/2/81-DD dated 04.09.1992 placed land and scheme under the control of DDA. It is further contended that architectural controls required basement use per byelaws, ground floor for shops, terrace for water reservoir. The misuse was reported regarding basement, mezzanine etc. and multiple show cause notices were issued to allottee between 1989-1993. When no response was received from lessee/allottee then the lease was determined by Lessor/Hon'ble LG on 29.12.1994. Thereafter the matter was referred for initiating action against under PP Act and the eviction order has been rightly passed against the unauthorized occupants. It is contended that as per the lease condition i.e. Clause 4(a) of the lease given to original allottee/lessee, PPA No. 16/2016 Digitally Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 4 of 19 signed by Prem Prem Kumar Kumar barthwal barthwal Date:
2026.01.09 15:17:33 +0530 the lessee cannot sell/transfer/assign or otherwise part with possession of the whole or any part of the plot except with the previous permission in writing which may be declined or granted with or without conditions. It is further contended that even when the permission is granted, the lessee was bound to pay 50% of unearned increase in the market value of the plot i.e. the difference between the premium paid and the market value at the time of such transfer. The lease further provided that the lessor shall have pre-emptive rights to purchase the property after deducting 50% of the unearned increase.
8. It is further contended that the impugned order was rightly passed as property in question was put to misuse and notices were duly issued regarding the misuse as well as breach of term of the lease by illegal sale. It is contended that the appellants have no locus standi to file the present appeal as appellants were never a party before the Estate Officer. There is no privity of contract with appellants and hence there was no obligation to issue notices or demand ground rent from the appellants and the present appeal is being filed in collusion with the allottees who had committed breach of the terms of the lease. It is further contended that the property was found to be misused for which number of notices were issued and the use of the building has not been done as per the Architectural Control Drawing. The Ld. Counsel has contended that building was to be constructed double storeyed, whereas it has been constructed four storeyed with terrace in violations of the Building Permit/ Architectural Drawing and that the common wall of the mezzanine floors of Plot No. B-9 and B-10 was removed. The alleged sale by the allottees is illegal and unauthorized as per lease clause 4(a) and the public premises is being unauthorizedly occupied by PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 5 of 19 Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:17:38 +0530 the appellant and others. It is further contended that the ground rent of the said public premises has not been deposited and the allotment already stands cancelled by the competent authority.
9. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully.
10. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that notice under Section 4 of the PP Act has not been served upon the appellants despite the fact that the respondent no. 1 was aware that ICICI Bank was a tenant under the appellants and the appellants had title and interest in the said property. It is further contended that notice served upon ICICI Bank was not in accordance with requirement of Section 4 of PP Act and no grounds were mentioned in the said notice. Ld. counsel for the appellants contended that under Section 4(2) of the Public Premises Act, the use of the word "shall" makes it mandatory for the Estate Officer to specify the precise grounds on which the proposed order of eviction is to be made. It is further argued that the Estate Office ought to have conducted the inquiry and recorded evidence while following the principles of natural justice. As per Section 8 of the Public Premises Act, the Estate Officer, for the purpose of conducting any inquiry under the Act, is vested with the same powers as those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is argued that in the present case, the impugned order has been passed only on the basis of a reference received from Deputy Director (CL) dated 31.03.2003 to initiate eviction proceedings and neither the said officer sending the reference was examined nor any of the officers/field staff of the DDA who had carried out the inspection and PPA No. 16/2016 Digitally Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 6 of 19 signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:17:42 +0530 submitted their reports were examined to prove any misuse.
11. It is further contended that the occupants of the premises had been pursuing their regularization with respondent no. 1/DDA but the Estate Officer did not care about regularization process and passed the impugned eviction order dated 19.01.2016 in a very hasty, mechanical and routine manner without following any due procedure of law and has also violated the principles of Natural Justice which shows the biasness of the Estate Officer and thus the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground also.
12. It is further argued that as per the policy of the respondent/DDA itself, the sale by original allottees can be regularized at the time of conversion of lease hold to free hold and even the ground rent and other dues can also be demanded but no such demand was made from appellant. It is argued that no demand for payment of ground rent has ever been made either from the original allottees or from the present occupants. It is further argued that the Estate Officer has not decided the issue of misuse as per the Auction/Lease conditions and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner and hence, it is liable to be quashed.
13. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/DDA has argued that the present appeal is not maintainable. It is argued that the Ld. Estate Officer's record makes it abundantly clear that the allottee of the property in question as well as the occupants at the relevant time were duly served as per the requirement of Section 4 of the PP Act. It is further argued that the appellants have purchased a portion i.e. a shop on the ground floor of the public premises during the PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 7 of 19 Digitally signed by Prem Kumar Prem barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:17:48 +0530 subsistence/continuance of the proceedings before the Ld. Estate Officer and hence they cannot take the plea that they were not served with the notices under section 4 of the Act.
14. It is further contended that the premises in question has been misused by the occupants and hence the lease deed was cancelled by the Hon'ble LG who is also Chairman of DDA. Unless the lease is restored, the occupants are to be considered unauthorized occupants and the allottees/occupants are also able to pay misuse charges/occupation charges for the entire period of unauthorized occupation of public premises. In support of his contention, Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 1 has referred to the cases of DDA Vs Anant Raj Industries Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 11 SCC 406. It is further argued that the misuse has not been removed and occupants have not paid the other charges such as ground rent, interest, unearned increase etc. and, as such, the appellants are not entitled to any relief from this court. The appellants have no locus standi to file the present appeal as the person from whom they claim to have purchased the property had no right, title or interest. It is contended that the Ld. Estate Officer/DDA has passed the impugned Order dated 19.01.2016 as per law after hearing both the parties and the appellant has no case at all.
15. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled, S.S. Con-
Build Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority 2023: DHC: 3092 has discussed the relevant provisions regarding PP Act and has reiterated the following observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in UOI & Anr. Vs. Mahender Pratap Soni & Ors., MANU/DE/1035/2016 :-
"11. It is unfortunate that inspite of the Constitution Bench Digitally signed by PPA No. 16/2016 Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 8 of 19 Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:17:56 +0530 in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. supra and the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Ambitious Gold Nib Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd. supra and inspite of the attention of the counsels for the respondents having been drawn thereto, the counsel for the respondents in their respective written submissions continue to harp upon the Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. supra.
12. It is now settled law:
(i) that the correctness or otherwise of the allegations of public authorities such as the petitioner L&DO or the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on the basis of which determination of lease is effected is to be decided by the Estate Officer under the PP Act.
(ii) that whether the lessee has committed breach of the terms of the lease deed or not and whether the determination of the lease was legal or not are matters to be adjudicated by the concerned authority under the PP Act i.e. the Estate Officer and cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the public authorities as the L&DO or the DDA cannot be asked to resort to the civil suit instead of the PP Act for eviction of the occupants even if an ex-lessee after the lease has been determined;
(iii) that the observations of the Supreme Court in Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. supra that the public authority as the L&DO and the DDA is required to file a civil suit and the proceedings under the PP Act are not maintainable is not good law;
(iv) that merely because the Estate Officer under the PP Act is not required to be a person well versed in law cannot be a ground for excluding from the ambit of PP Act the premises in unauthorized occupation of persons who had obtained possession as lessee;
(v) that a combined reading of Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the PP Act shows that final order that is passed in the proceedings under the PP Act is by the judicial officer of the rank of a District Judge; the same also suggests that questions as to justification Digitally signed by for determination of lease fall within the jurisdiction of the Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Estate Officer." Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:18:02 +0530 PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 9 of 19
16. It is not disputed that the lease dated 18.02.1977 was issued in favour of Shri Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni. Admittedly, the original allottees have sold the said premises and the same has been further sold by sub-dividing and in portions to various persons. Perusal of the lease deed shows that Clause 2 and 3(a) of the Lease Deed reads as under :-
2. The LESSEE shall not deviate in any manner whatsoever from the layout plan nor alter the size of the plot whether by sub-
division, amalgation or otherwise, unless specifically peremitted to do so by the LESSOR.
3(a) The Lessee shall, within a period of three years, from the date hereof which period shall be essence of the contract, erect upon the plot and complete in a substantial and workman-like manner a commercial building in accordance with the ty pe, design and other architectural requirements prescribed by the LESSOR or its commissioner after obtaining the necessary sanction there for and in accordance with the sanctioned building plan and municipal building bye-laws and also provide prospersewers and drains and other conveniences in accordance with the sanctioned building plan and to the satisfaction of the municipal and other authorities appointed under the law.
Further the Clause 4(a) of the Lease Deed postulated as under :-
4(a) The LESSEE shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the plot before or after erection of building hereon except with the previous permission in writing of the LESSOR or its Commissioner which may be declined or granted with or without conditions.
17. The lease in favour of original allottees Shri Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni has been cancelled on 19.05.1994 by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor for the reasons of violations of terms and conditions of allotment as the lessee sold the plot illegally and the basement, mezzanine floor and ground floor were being misused and PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 10 of 19 Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:18:07 +0530 also for not paying the ground rent.
18. The case of the appellant is that plot No. 10, B Block, Community Centre, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Kingsway Camp North, Delhi was allotted to Sh. Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni vide Perpetual Lease deed dt. 18.02.1977 and thereafter, the same was sold out to different purchasers and subsequently the appellants had purchased the same from Mrs. Kanta W/o Shri Subhash Chander vide Agreement to Sell dt. 05.03.2008. Clause 4 (a) of said Perpetual Lease Deed says that "The LESSEE shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the plot before or after erection of the building thereon except with the previous permission in writing of the LESSOR or its Commissioner, which may be declined or granted with or without conditions.". The appellants themselves have admitted that they had purchased the said shop on the ground floor of public premises in 2008 and same was in possession of ICICI Bank which had installed ATM in the said shop. Perusal of the record of the Estate Officer shows that in the proceedings dated 07.04.2008 the Estate Officer recorded that notices were earlier issued to the lessee i.e original allottee only but there are other affected persons/parties at all the floors and hence notices were directed to be issued to the affected parties and the notices were also directed to be pasted at the main gate of the building as well as gates of each floor.
Thereafter on the next date of hearing i.e. on 07.05.2008, official from Bank of Maharashtra (occupying the basement and mezzanine floor) as well as few other occupants appeared before the Estate Officer and were directed to submit their reply to the show cause notice. Perusal of the record of Estate Officer also shows that an official from M/s PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 11 of 19 Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:18:12 +0530 Euronet Services Pvt. Ltd. had participated in the proceedings dated 05.08.2014 and filed reply that Mr. Sunil Chanana and Ajay Chanana had offered the shop situated at ground floor admeasuring 124 Sq. ft.
for the purpose of installing ATM in the said premises and they had also provided copies of Agreement to Sell dated 05.03.2008 executed in their favour by Smt. Kanta and the company M/s Euronet Services Pvt. Ltd. had entered into a lease deed dated 22.02.2013 for a period of nine years at a monthly rent of Rs.36,000/- per month and they have installed City Bank ATM in the said premises at the given shop. In para 7 of the said reply, it has been admitted that the occupants M/s City Bank had received the show cause notice calling upon them as to why the order of eviction should not be passed against them in terms of PP Act. Perusal of the proceedings dated 05.08.2014 shows that the Estate Officer has recorded "When confronted about the ownership of the portion of the property under possession of ATM, City Bank, the counsel could not provide any satisfactory reply nor could furnish any documentary evidence in this regard." It was further recorded that respondent stated that no efforts have been made for restoration of the lease nor any dues/amount towards misuse etc. has been deposited with DDA. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that notices were not served upon the occupant of the shop in question by the Estate Officer. It is also undisputed that the appellants Sunil Chanana and Ajay Chanana had purchased the shop in question of the public premises during the pendency of the proceedings before the Estate Officer. A purchaser is expected to verify all relevant property documents before completing a transaction. It is hard to believe that the appellants were not aware about the proceedings when PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 12 of 19 Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:18:20 +0530 their tenant i.e. Euronet Services Pvt. Ltd. were already participating in the proceedings and appeared before the Estate Officer on 05.08.2014. Having chosen to purchase a property whose allotment had already been cancelled and while the proceedings for evicting the occupants was pending before the Estate Officer, the appellant also assumed the responsibility/risks for all the liabilities attached to the said property. If the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants regarding non- service of notices to persons like the present appellants are entertained, then every unauthorized occupant would indulge in such valid or invalid transactions during the pendency of proceedings before the Estate Officer and claim non-service of notice subsequently. Perusal of the record of the Estate Officer shows that the mezzanine floor of the public premises was under the occupation of Bank of Maharashtra vide registered Lease Agreement dated 23.03.2002 and perusal of the said lease agreement reveals that Bank of Maharashtra required approximately 2000 Sq. ft. for its banking purposes and the lessor (Mrs. Meenakshi Marwah and Mrs. Saroj Marwah) agreed to remove the common wall of the Mezzanine floor of B-9 and B-10. A reply on behalf of Bank of Maharasthra claiming to be lessee of premises admeasuring 2000 Sq. ft (Carpet area of the mezzanine floor of building known as B-9/B-10, situated at Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-9) taken from Ms. Saroj Marwah has also been filed on record of the Estate Officer. Thus, the mezzanine floor under occupation of Bank of Maharashtra was clearly put to misuse by the allottee/occupant. Since the original allottee was already in unauthorized occupation after cancellation of lease on 19.05.1994 by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi, the subsequent occupants namely Digitally PPA No. 16/2016 signed by Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 13 of 19 Prem Prem Kumar Kumar barthwal barthwal Date:
2026.01.09 15:18:26 +0530 Marwah's also remained in unauthorized possession and they enjoyed the premises and realized huge rental income without any lawful right, title, or interest. The documents of the appellant i.e. agreement to sell etc. executed in favour of the appellants do not confer any right, title or interest in his favour as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2009 (7) SCC 363 where it has been held that a transaction involving the sale or transfer of property requires a sale deed, which must be registered under the Indian Registration Act, of 1908. In Anuj Sharma vs Amit Sharma, Neutral citation 2023:DHC:4589, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also referred to judgment of Suraj lamps (supra) and held that, "it is trite that transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a Deed of Conveyance/Sale Deed, duly stamped and registered as required by law and in the absence of this, no right, title or interest can be transferred in an immovable property." In Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (Neutral Citiation : 2023 INSC 1016), it was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Thus, the appellants had no legal right or valid authority to occupy the public premises on the basis of their agreement to sell. The original allottee/lessee Shri Sita Ram Sahini and Smt. Suman Sahni have not challenged the order of determination or cancellation of their lease by competent authority and thus, said lease was never restored and the PPA No. 16/2016 Digitally Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 14 of 19 signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:18:31 +0530 misuser of the mezzanine floor continued even during the proceedings before the Estate Officer. After cancellation of the lease deed, the original allottee as well as anybody claiming through the said allottee became unauthorized occupants of the public premises in question.
19. In the case of DDA v Parsu Ram and Ors., 2007 (96) DRJ 548, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows:
"3. This understanding of the learned Additional District Judge in respect of the ratio of Express Newspapers (supra) is clearly incorrect. The position has been clarified by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Delhi Development Authority v.
Ambitious Gold Nib Manufacturing (P) Ltd. LPA No. 976/2004 dated 21.2.2006 After examining the decisions in Express Newspapers (supra) and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 406 in some detail, the Division Bench concluded as under:
10. Thus in Express Newspapers case itself the Supreme Court has clarified that it has not held that the Government does not have the power to take action under the Public Premises Act where admittedly there is unauthorized construction by a lessee or by any other person on Government land and such person is in unauthorized occupation thereof.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
13. Thus the Supreme Court has clearly observed that the second part of the definition of unauthorized occupation in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act expressly covers continuance in occupation by any person of public premises after the authority under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. In the present case, it is alleged by the DDA that on account of violations of the terms of the lease deed, the DDA has determined the lease of the writ petitioner. We are not going into the correctness or otherwise of these allegations of the DDA as that will be decided by the authority under the Public Premises Act but we are certainly of the opinion that it would be pre- Digitally signed by mature to entertain such a writ petition at this stage. Prem Prem Kumar
14. It is open to the writ petitioner to appear before the authority Kumar barthwal under the Public Premises Act and contend that it had not barthwal Date:
2026.01.09 committed any breach of the terms of the lease deed; that there 15:18:36 +0530 was no determination of the lease deed, etc. These are matters to be adjudicated by the concerned authority under the Public Premises Act and we would not like to deal with them. Suffice it PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 15 of 19 to say that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in writ jurisdiction. The allegation of the DDA was that it had determined the lease deed for breach of the conditions of the lease deed and, in our opinion, this allegation gives sufficient jurisdiction to the authority under the Public Premises Act to proceed with the hearing of the matter before it and adjudicate all these questions.
15. The writ appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4th August, 2004 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the writ petitioner to raise the questions mentioned above, that is, whether there was any violation of the lease deed, whether there was any valid determination of the lease deed, etc. before the authority under the Public Premises Act who will deal with these contentions and decide the same expeditiously after hearing the parties concerned in accordance with law."
20. In the considered opinion of this court, it was for the unauthorized occupants of the premises to show that there is no breach of the terms of the lease deed or that there was no misuser and that their occupation of the public premises was valid, legal, justified or authorized. The proceedings dated 05.08.2014 before the Estate Officer record that the occupants have failed to furnish any documentary evidence in support of their ownership and no efforts have been made for restoration of the lease deed nor any dues/amount towards misuser etc. has been deposited with DDA. The Estate Officer has also recorded during proceedings dated 28.05.2013 that sufficient opportunities had been given to occupants to produce evidence in their support but they failed to do so. The proceedings dated 25.04.2012 also record that status report dated 04.05.2010 confirmed that there is no change in misuser of property and ground rent had also not been paid qua the public premises. No documents regarding payment of any unearned increase, misuser charges, ground rent etc. has been filed or placed on record of Estate Officer or this court. In case titled as DDA PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 16 of 19 Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar Kumar barthwal barthwal Date:
2026.01.09 15:18:43 +0530 vs. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 3783 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.6978 of 2012) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 12.04.2016, wherein it is held as under:
..."34. The original lessee has been in unauthorised occupation of the property in question for around 30 years (till he executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent) and the respondent has been illegally inducted in possession of the same, by the original lessee, who himself was in unauthorised possession of the property. For around 17 years the respondent has been enjoying the property in question without any right, title or interest. Thus, both are liable to pay the damages for unauthorised occupation and the DDA is empowered under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to claim damages from them. We record this finding in exercise of our appellate power in view of our finding and reasons assigned in this judgment holding that the concurrent finding is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law in granting decree of permanent injunction in favour of the respondent who is not entitled in law for the same. There is a miscarriage of justice in granting the relief by the courts below in favour of the respondent. Further, keeping in view the public interest involved in this case and particularly having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we have to allow this appeal of the DDA. Since we have answered the points framed in this appeal in favour of the appellant-DDA, we further, direct the DDA to take possession of the property immediately without resorting to eviction proceedings, as the respondent has been in unauthorised possession of the property in question, by virtue of erroneous judgments passed by the courts below. The respondent has been unlawfully enjoying the public property which would amount to unlawful enrichment which is against the public interest.
35. For the aforesaid reasons this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court affirming the judgments and decrees of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court in RCA No. 75 of 1982 and OS No. 47 of 1975 respectively, is hereby set aside. Accordingly, We pass the following order-
A. The DDA is allowed to take the possession of the property in question immediately and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the DD Act read with the relevant Rules in Digitally signed by favour of an eligible applicant by conducting public auction, if it Prem Prem Kumar intends to dispose of the property. Kumar barthwal barthwal Date:
B. The DDA is entitled for the recovery of damages from both, 2026.01.09 15:18:48 the original lessee or his legal heirs and the respondent, for the +0530 PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 17 of 19 period of their unauthorised occupation of the property at the market rate prevalent in the area.
C. The amount which has been deposited, with the DDA, by the respondent as conversion charges is to be adjusted towards the damages that may be determined by the DDA in accordance with law.
D. The costs of Rs.1 lakh is awarded to the DDA, payable by the respondent for these proceedings."
21. Keeping in view the above discussion and in the considered opinion of this court, once the lease in favour of allottees Shri Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni had been rightly cancelled on 19.05.1994 by the competent authority/Hon'ble LG due to contravention of the terms of lease deed i.e. sale without prior permission and misuse of the mezzanine floor etc., the possession of the original allottees Shri Sita Ram Sahni and Smt. Suman Sahni in respect of public premises bearing Plot No. B-10, CC, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi became unauthorized after cancellation and they are liable to be evicted under provisions of Public Premises Act. The occupants have failed to justify their occupation of the public premises after cancellation of the lease which has been rightly terminated by the competent authority i.e. Hon'ble LG due to breach of terms of the lease deed particularly sale without prior permission, misuser of mezzanine floor and non-payment of the rental dues. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the original allottee did not even care to pay the yearly rent as per the lease terms or violated the terms of the lease by selling the public premises in a clandestine manner without seeking prior approval from the concerned authorities.
Exercising the power conferred under the Act, the Estate Officer has rightly passed the impugned eviction order in respect of property/plot No. B-10, CC, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and this court does not find PPA No. 16/2016 Digitally Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 18 of 19 signed by Prem Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Date:
barthwal 2026.01.09 15:18:51 +0530 any infirmity or illegality committed by the Estate Officer while passing the impugned order dated 19.01.2016. There is no merit in the instant appeal and same is hereby dismissed. Copy of order along with file of Estate Officer be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room. Prem Digitally signed by Prem Kumar barthwal Kumar Announced in the open court barthwal Date:
2026.01.09 15:18:56 today i.e. 9th day of January, 2026 +0530 (PREM KUMAR BARTHWAL) Principal District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi.PPA No. 16/2016 Harish Chanana Vs. DDA & Anr. Page 19 of 19