Shri Narender Kumar Aggarwal vs Noor Mohd & Anr on 18 April, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Shri Narender Kumar Aggarwal vs Noor Mohd & Anr on 18 April, 2011

                         1

      IN THE COURT OF SHRI YOGESH KHANNA
        ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, (NORTH-
             WEST)03 COURTS, DELHI

MCA No.03/11

Shri Narender Kumar Aggarwal ..       Appellant
     Vs.
Noor Mohd & Anr                 ... Respondents


DATE OF INSTITUTION   : 24.03.2011
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT : 05.04.2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT      : 19.04.2011

JUDGMENT

The facts of the appeal are as follows:

i) that the respondent No.1 Noor Mohd.

filed a civil suit No.485/2010 for permanent injunction requiring two reliefs:

a) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit premises;

b) directing the landlord/appellant herein to give a no objection in favour of the Respondent No.1 and a direction to the MCD/respondent No.2 to renew his licence in the name of M/s Noor Mohd Halal Meat Shop for the impugned shop.

MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

2. It is alleged that earlier the respondent No.1 was a tenant of shop No.6, Railway Station Road, Samaypur Badli, Delhi, owned by appellant. The respondent No. 1 when working at shop NO.6 (supra) was holding a valid licence from Veterniary Service Department, MCD to run his shop under the name and style of M/s Noor Mohd Halal Meat Shop. Later the respondent No. 1 left shop No.6 and came in shop No.4, at the instance of appellant, vide a rent deed dated 09.10.2010. The Respondent No.1 took this impugned shop No.4 on rent from appellant @ Rs.3,510/- per month, without electricity and water charges, for a period of 11 months w.e.f 01.10.2009 till 31.8.2010 for commercial use. It is averred that on 04.12.2009 the Respondent No.1 applied for a licence with the MCD viz the respondent No.2, for running his meat shop No.4 along with a no objection certificate dated 12.10.2009 given by appellant. However, on 17.04.2010 the said application for licence was cancelled on following grounds a) the respondent No.1 was found selling unstamped meat from his meat shop; b) live goats were found inside the premises;c) sanitary conditions were not well and d) the structure of the shop was not as per the norms for MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

granting trade licence.

3. The respondent No.1 on 26.07.10 again applied with the respondent No.2 for reconsidering of his rejected application on the plea that he would remove all the objections. However, the respondent No.1 failed to submit the NOC from landlord/ appellant and his application was rejected by respondent No.2 on 23.11.2010 solely on the ground that NOC was not granted by the landlord/owner of the premises.

4. Thereafter, in the civil suit, the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 25.02.11 granted two reliefs:

i) Appellant was restrained from interferring in the peaceful possession of the Respondent No.1 and from dispossessing him from shop No.4, without due process of law, during the tenancy of the suit;

ii) that respondent No.2, to decide the application for grant of licence, to run the meat shop No.4, within 30 days, without insisting upon no objection certificate from appellant/ landlord.

5. It is the relief No.(ii) that hurts both the respondent No.2 and the MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

appellant; as such both have filed separate appeals challenging this part of the impugned order.

6. It is alleged by counsel for the appellant that various directions have been passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, directing, inter alia, that the unlicenced meat shops be closed at all cost. The orders dated 19.05.2006, 14.03.2006, 31.05.2001, 24.09.2001 are filed and perused. In all these orders, it has been held that the unlicenced meat shops be closed and in case of restart of any meat shop, MCD/appellant to grant the licence(s) in accordance with law.

7. Ld. counsel for the appellant also refers to the office order No.756/DVS/2010 dated 01.04.2010 of Director (VS) which reads as under:

"The Corporation vide Resolution No.203 dated 10.08.2004 has approved that the requirement of furnishing No Objection Certificate of owner in case the applicant is a tenant, be dispensed with if the tenant furnishes rent agreement/rent receipts or any other document provided that the landlord/owner has let out the subject property (as defined in Delhi Rent Control Act, 1977) for commercial/storage purposes in case of general trade licenses. The Corporation has further MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

approved the renewal of licenses for a period of three years in one go except where any trade/storage licenses is subject to yearly clearance from Delhi Fire Service, Delhi Pollution Committee and Delhi Police.

The issue of extending above policy for renewal of meat shop licenses has been examined by the department and considering various factors, the following has been decided:-

1. The meat shopkeeper would submit NOC from the owner of the shop/property, if he is a tenant, at the time of applying for grant of licence for the first time only. NOC from the owner of the shop/property would not be required at the time of subsequent renewal of the license but the tenant of meat shop/licence holder would submit valid rent agreement and rent receipts at the time of renewal of license each time.

2. The licence of the meat shop cannot be compared to the licenses of general branch as the meat being perishable item requires regular inspection for renewal of licence. In view of MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

this, the licence for the meat shops shall be renewed on yearly basis as mentioned in the policy approved by the Corporation.

3. The condition of submission of No Objection Certificate from the Managing Committee and/or Imam of Masjid, if the license is applied for a shop stated in the compound/building of a Masjid (Mosque) would continue.

4. the meat shopkeeper would submit "No Objection Certificate" from concerned Police Station from law and order point of view at the time of submission of application for grant of license for buffalo meat and pork shops. However, the condition of submission of NOC from police department for any subsequent renewal of licence has been waived off. In addition of above, the meat shopkeepers will have to conform to the guidelines already issued for meat shop licenses.

This issues with the approval of the Commissioner, MCD.

Director(VS) MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

Distribution:

1. Dy. Commissioners of all Zones

2. All Zonal Veterniary Officers

3. Manager, Ghazipur Slaughter House

4. Veterniary Officers of Central Meat Raid Team.

Copy for Kind information toL-

1. Addl. Commissioner (Vet. & Edu.)

2. Secretary to the Commissioner, MCD"

The counsel for appellant also refers to the resolution dated 10.07.2006, at page No.8, wherein it is mentioned that a no objection certificate from the owner of the shop/property, if the shop for which licence is applied is on rent/lease basis, along with receipt of rent and a copy of the rent agreement; shall be required to be filed for obtaining the licence for a meat shop.

8. Hence it is argued by the counsel for appellant that since a no objection certificate for renewal of licence has to be filed, as per law, hence no such impuged direction, can be given by the Ld. Trial Court.

9. I have perused the judgments and the relevant orders, quoted by Ld. counsel for appellant. All the judgments speak about stoppng of the meat business by unlicenced/unauthorised meat shops. It is MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

not the case here. Rather the Respondent No.1 is running from pillar to post to obtain a licence to run his meat shop. Admittedly, the Respondent No.1 was holding a valid licence when he was doing the business of meat in shop No.6, also owned by appellant. Admittedly, the appellant has also given no objection certificate for obtaining a licence in respect of impugned shop No.4 on 04.12.2010; but since the application for licence was cancelled on 17.04.2010 for some other reasons and since the tenancy of the Respondent No.1 in respect of shop No.4 also expired on 31.8.2010, so appellant refused to give Noc further. A bare perusal of the office orders, would show the purpose for obtaining a NOC for grant of licence; or the rent receipts for renewal of the licence; is merely to see that the shopkeeper is authorisedly sitting and doing business in the premises. No doubt the tenancy of Respondent No. 1 has expired on 31.8.2010 and the landlord/owner/appellant is not inclined to keep him as his tenant in the premises, any more, but as per the settled law, till the time the tenant is evicted by due process of law, he has every right to retain the premises and earn his livelihood. Admittedly, when the MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

Respondent No.1 applied for the licence for shop No.4 for the first time, the appellant gave NOC. Unfortunately the said application was rejected by MCD/respondent No.2 but for some other reasons. However, when respondent No.1 re-applied for licence, the appellant backed out. It is also an admitted case that the licence for shop No. 4, though applied, has not been granted to the Respondent No.1 till date, meaning thereby that no objection certificate of appellant, as was given by him to the Respondent No.1 still holds good. Even if we take it as a case of renewal of licence, admittedly, as per the office order dated 01.04.2010, only a valid rent agreement and rent receipt is required. Now since the appellant has openly declared that he would not give his NOC, and since the tenancy has already been terminated by efflux of time, there was no other course left with the Ld. Trial Court but to direct the respondent No.2 to deal with the application of the respondent No.1 for grant of licence for shop No.4 without insisting upon a no objection certificate from the appellant. The impugned order, hence, is in consonance with the spirit of the office order dated 01.04.2010. As for the renewal, the office order dated MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

01.04.2010, also do not insist upon a no objection certificate and rather limits only to the filing to the rent receipts. Now since vide the impugned order the appellant has also been directed not to dispossess the Respondent No.1 without due process of law, so the Respondent No.1 cannot be deprived of his livelihood which he earns for himself and his family from the impugned shop. Of course, once the decree of possession is passed against the Respondent No.1 then, of course, the court would also not interfere to give such like directions, but till such time, the decree of possession is not passed the court cannot deprive anyone from his livelihood. Regarding the plea that the court has granted the final relief at the interim stage, I am to say that this plea is totally frivolous as the main relief sought in the plaint by the Respondent No.1 is to direct the MCD to renew his licence. The Ld. Trial Court vide the impugned order has never asked respondent NO.2 to renew the licence of respondent No.1 but has merely asked the MCD to reconsider the applicaion for renewal of licence but without insisting upon NOC. The respondent No.2 still be within its right to even discard the renewal, if other conditions, for grant of licence, MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

are not fulfilled by the Respondent No.1. Now coming to the last limb of arguments viz that the appellant had never threatened the respondent No.1 nor the respondent No.1 is paying the rent, I am merely to say that the allegations set out in the plaint do make out a prima facie case of an interim order in favour of respondent No.1. Qua arrears of rent, the respondent No.1 has offered to deposit entire arrears in court within a week from today. Be deposited as agreed. Since there is no illegality in the impugned order, the appeal thus, stands dismissed. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.

TCR be returned with copy of this order.

Appeal file be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open ( Yogesh Khanna ) court on 19.4.2011 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (North-West-III) ROHINI COURTS Delhi MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

IN THE COURT OF SHRI YOGESH KHANNA ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, (NORTH-

             WEST)03 COURTS, DELHI

MCA No.04/11

Municipal Corporation
of Delhi                      ....   Appellant
     Vs.

Noor Mohd & Anr               ... Respondents

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.03.2011 RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT : 05.04.2011 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19.04.2011 JUDGMENT The facts of the appeal are as follows:

i) that the respondent No.1 Noor Mohd.

filed a civil suit No.485/2010 for permanent injunction requiring two reliefs:

a) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit premises;

b) directing the landlord/respondent 2 herein to give a no objection in favour of the Respondent No.1 and a direction to the MCD to renew his licence in the name of M/s Noor Mohd Halal Meat Shop for the MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

impugned shop.

2. It is alleged that earlier the respondent No.1 was a tenant of shop No.6, Railway Station Road, Samaypur Badli, Delhi, owned by respondent No.2. The respondent No. 1 when working at shop NO.6 (supra) was holding a valid licence from Veterniary Service Department, MCD to run his shop under the name and style of M/s Noor Mohd Halal Meat Shop. Later the respondent No. 1 left shop No.6 and came in shop No.4, at the instance of respondent No.2, vide a rent deed dated 09.10.2010. The Respondent No.1 took this impugned shop No.4 on rent from respondent No.2 @ Rs.3,510/- per month, without electricity and water charges, for a period of 11 months w.e.f 01.10.2009 till 31.8.2010 for commercial use. It is averred that on 04.12.2009 the Respondent No.1 applied for a licence with the MCD viz the appellant, for running his meat shop No.4 along with a no objection certificate dated 12.10.2009 given by respondent No.2. However, on 17.04.2010 the said application for licence was cancelled on following grounds a) the respondent No.1 was found selling unstamped meat from his meat shop; b) live goats were found inside the premises;c) sanitary conditions were not MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

well and d) the structure of the shop was not as per the norms for granting trade licence.

3. The respondent No.1 on 26.07.10 again applied with the appellant-M.C.D for reconsidering of his rejected application on the plea that he would remove all the objections. However, the respondent No.1 failed to submit the NOC from landlord/ respondent No.2 and his application was rejected by appellant-M.C.D on 23.11.2010 solely on the ground that NOC was not granted by the landlord/owner of the premises.

4. Thereafter, in the civil suit, the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 25.02.11 granted two reliefs:

i) Respondent No.2 was restrained from interferring in the peaceful possession of the Respondent No.1 and from dispossessing him from shop No.4, without due process of law, during the tenancy of the suit;

ii) that appellant-M.C.D, to decide the application for grant of licence, to run the meat shop No.4, within 30 days, without insisting upon no objection MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

certificate from Respondent No.2/landlord.

5. It is the relief No.(ii) that hurts both the respondent No.2 and the appellant; as such both have filed separate appeals challenging this part of the impugned order.

7. Ld. counsel for the MCD/appellant also refers to the office order No.756/DVS/2010 dated 01.04.2010 of Director (VS) which reads as under:

"The Corporation vide Resolution No.203 dated 10.08.2004 has approved that the requirement of furnishing No Objection Certificate of owner in case the applicant is a tenant, be dispensed with if the tenant furnishes rent agreement/rent receipts or any other document provided that the landlord/owner has let out the MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

subject property (as defined in Delhi Rent Control Act, 1977) for commercial/storage purposes in case of general trade licenses. The Corporation has further approved the renewal of licenses for a period of three years in one go except where any trade/storage licenses is subject to yearly clearance from Delhi Fire Service, Delhi Pollution Committee and Delhi Police.

The issue of extending above policy for renewal of meat shop licenses has been examined by the department and considering various factors, the following has been decided:-

1. The meat shopkeeper would submit NOC from the owner of the shop/property, if he is a tenant, at the time of applying for grant of licence for the first time only. NOC from the owner of the shop/property would not be required at the time of subsequent renewal of the license but the tenant of meat shop/licence holder would submit valid rent agreement and rent receipts at the time of renewal of license each time.

2. The licence of the meat shop cannot be compared to the MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

licenses of general branch as the meat being perishable item requires regular inspection for renewal of licence. In view of this, the licence for the meat shops shall be renewed on yearly basis as mentioned in the policy approved by the Corporation.

licenses.

This issues with the approval of the Commissioner, MCD.

Director(VS) Distribution:

1. Dy. Commissioners of all Zones

2. All Zonal Veterniary Officers

3. Manager, Ghazipur Slaughter House

4. Veterniary Officers of Central Meat Raid Team.

Copy for Kind information toL-

1. Addl. Commissioner (Vet. & Edu.)

2. Secretary to the Commissioner, MCD"

The counsel for appellant also refers to the resolution dated 10.07.2006, at page No.8, wherein it is mentioned that a no objection certificate from the owner of the shop/property, if the shop for which licence is applied is on rent/lease basis, along with receipt of rent and a copy of the rent agreement; shall be required to be filed for obtaining the licence for a meat shop.

8. Hence it is argued by the counsel for MCD/appellant that since a no objection certificate for renewal of licence has to be filed, as per law, hence no such impuged direction, can be given by the Ld. Trial Court.

9. I have perused the judgments and the MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

relevant orders, quoted by Ld. counsel for appellant. All the judgments speak about stoppng of the meat business by unlicenced/unauthorised meat shops. It is not the case here. Rather the Respondent No.1 is running from pillar to post to obtain a licence to run his meat shop. Admittedly, the Respondent No.1 was holding a valid licence when he was doing the business of meat in shop No.6, also owned by Respondent No.2. Admittedly, the Respondent No.2 has also given no objection certificate for obtaining a licence in respect of impugned shop No.4 on 04.12.2010; but since the application for licence was cancelled on 17.04.2010 for some other reasons and since the tenancy of the Respondent No.1 in respect of shop No.4 also expired on 31.8.2010, so Respondent No.2 refused to give Noc further. A bare perusal of the office orders, as filed by counsel for MCD, would show the purpose for obtaining a NOC for grant of licence; or the rent receipts for renewal of the licence; is merely to see that the shopkeeper is authorisedly sitting and doing business in the premises. No doubt the tenancy of Respondent No. 1 has expired on 31.8.2010 and the landlord/owner/ respondent No.2 is not inclined to keep him as his tenant in MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

the premises, any more, but as per the settled law, till the time the tenant is evicted by due process of law, he has every right to retain the premises and earn his livelihood. Admittedly, when the Respondent No.1 applied for the licence for shop No.4 for the first time, the respondent No.2 gave NOC. Unfortunately the said application was rejected by MCD, but for other reasons. However, when respondent No.1 re-applied for licence, the respondent No.2 backed out. It is also an admitted case that the licence for shop No. 4, though applied, has not been granted to the Respondent No.1 till date, meaning thereby that no objection certificate of Respondent No.2, as was given by him to the Respondent No.1 still holds good. Even if we take it as a case of renewal of licence, admittedly, as per the office order dated 01.04.2010, only a valid rent agreement and rent receipt is required. Now since the Respondent No.2 has openly declared that he would not give his NOC, and since the tenancy has already been terminated by efflux of time, there was no other course left with the Ld. Trial Court but to direct the appellant to deal with the application of the respondent No.1 for grant of licence MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

for shop No.4 without insisting upon a no objection certificate from the respondent No. 2. The impugned order, hence, is in consonance with the spirit of the office order dated 01.04.2010. As for the renewal, the office order dated 01.04.2010, also do not insist upon a no objection certificate and rather limits only to the filing to the rent receipts. Now since vide the impugned order the Respondent No.2 has also been directed not to dispossess the Respondent No.1 without due process of law, so the Respondent No.1 cannot be deprived of his livelihood which he earns for himself and his family from the impugned shop. Of course, once the decree of possession is passed against the Respondent No.1 then, of course, the court would also not interfere to give such like directions, but till such time, the decree of possession is not passed the court cannot deprive anyone from his livelihood. Regarding the plea that the court has granted the final relief at the interim stage, I am to say that this plea is totally frivolous as the main relief sought in the plaint by the Respondent No.1 is to direct the MCD to renew his licence. The Ld. Trial Court vide the impugned order has never asked appellant/MCD to renew the licence of MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

respondent No.1 but has merely asked the MCD to reconsider the applicaion for renewal of licence but without insisting upon NOC. The appellant shall be within its right to even discard the renewal, if other conditions, for grant of licence, are not fulfilled by the Respondent No.1. Hence the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.

TCR be returned with copy of this order.

Appeal file be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open ( Yogesh Khanna ) court on 19.4.2011 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (North-West-III) ROHINI COURTS Delhi MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

MCD Vs. Noor Mohd.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Shri Narender Kumar Aggarwal vs Noor Mohd & Anr on 18 April, 2011