Delhi District Court
Tis Hazari vs M/S. Bharat Glass & Plywood on 24 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF RAKESH KUMARIII, ACJ/ARC(WEST)
TIS HAZARI, DELHI
E No.:220/11
Date of institution: 27.05.2011
Date of decision: 24.11.2012
Sushan Pal Soni
S/o Late Sh. Satya Pal Soni,
At present residing at
A11, First Floor Rajouri Garden
New Delhi110027
Permanent resident of
30. AVA Crescemt
Richmond Hill, Ontario,
L4B, 2X2, Canada
...... PETITIONER
Versus
M/s. Bharat Glass & Plywood
Co. Through its Managing
Partner Sh. Ranjan Khosla
Resident of J145, Rajouri Garden
New Delhi110027
Tenant of Shop No. 5 & 6, In property
A11 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi27
.....RESPONDENT
Order
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off an application U/s 25B (4) of DRC Act filed on behalf of the respondent for seeking leave to contest the present E No.220/11 Page 1 of 19 eviction petition.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing no. A11, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi being one of the legal heir of the previous owner/landlady namely Smt. Santosh S. Soni through registered sale deed dated 11.09.1962 (copy attached) and the other legal heirs namely Smt. Sarita Handa & Sh. Sumit Pal Soni have executed the relinquishment Deed in respect of their undivided share in the property in favour of the petitioner out of natural love and affection. It is stated that petitioner previously shifted to Canada for better business prospects and is carrying out business in India for the last more than 78 years and incorporated a company namely M/s Sonitek Payphones and Telecom Private Limited and subsequently changed the name of the said company to M/s Sonitek Consultancy Private Ltd and petitioner is Managing Director & Promoter of the said company which is duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act dated 14.05.03. The petitioner is holding the Person of Indian Origin (PIO) Card issued by the Government of India and on account of his business in India he has been regularly visiting India frequently and running a B.P.O in India and is carrying out work for various Canadian clients. It is stated that Shop No. 5 and 6, on the ground floor in property bearing no. 11, Block A, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi110027 was let out for commercial purposes and the tenancy was created in the name of the firm which is managed by Ranjan Khosla as Managing partner of the said firm @ Rs. 347/ per month. The tenant have merged two separate shops into one by removing the load bearing wall and caused serious damage to the whole property. The shops in question E No.220/11 Page 2 of 19 are in occupation of the respondent as a tenant and the petitioner bonafidely required the tenanted premises for set up a business for his son and the petitioner does not have any other alternative accommodation in which he can set up the business for his son as there are other tenants occupying the suit property as well as property bearing no. 1687 Arya Samaj Road Naiwla Gali Karol Bagh, Delhi. It is further stated that the son of the petitioner is pursuing M.B.A from Singapore and is interested to open his L.P.O (Legal Processing Office) as such the petitioner needs the premises bonafidely for setting up business for his son namely Puneet Pal soni as he is having the requisite qualification to run the LPO. The petitioner wants to set up a business centre in India and on account of the steep cost of commercial office/unit and high rental, is not in a position to afford the monthly rents and other ancillary expenses. The petitioner on account of his bonafide need to have his own business setup in India and to have a business establishment for his son, wants to evict the respondent from the tenanted premises a the petitioner wants to run his commercial unit/office from the said shops which are having great commercial value as the same are situated adjacent to Ring Road, Delhi. Lastly stated that petitioner has no other commercial property which he can put to use as there are other tenants who are occupying the suit property as well as property bearing no. 1687 Arya Samaj Road Naiwal Gali Karol Bagh Delhi, the same is fully occupied by various tenants which were inducted by the previous owner i.e. the deceased mother of the petitioner as such on account of nonavailability of commercial space with him prayer for eviction order in respect of Shop No. 5 and 6, on the ground floor in property bearing no. 11, BlockA, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi27 as shown in red colour in the site plan E No.220/11 Page 3 of 19 has been made.
3. An application under section 25B (4) of the DRC Act alongwith an affidavit was filed by the respondent. In detailed affidavit U/s 25B of DRC Act respondent submitted that petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and concealed the true and actual fact as the M/s. Bharat Glass & Plywood Company is the tenant in respect of Shop no.1, 2 and 3 situated on the ground floor of the property bearing no.11 in Block A, Rajouri Garden New Delhi whereas the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the eviction from the Shop No. 5 & 6. It is further submitted that Smt. Santosh S. Soni, the owner of the property did not pay the property tax to Municipal Corporation of Delhi due to which MCD attached the rent of all the tenanted shops of the building and directed the tenants to pay the rent of the tenanted shops to MCD. It is further submitted that approximately in the year 1963 only shop no.1 of the property no. A11 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi27 was taken on rent by his father Sh. S. P. Khosla and subsequently after few months shop no. 2 and 3 were also taken on rent. It is further stated that the site plan filed by the petitioner is wrong and submitted that the firm is not the tenant in respect of shop no. 5 & 6. It is further stated that the present petition of the petitioner is totally based on false, frivolous and concocted facts and petitioner has not approached to Court with clean hands as the petitioner is the Canadian Citizen and permanently settled as well as running his business in Canada. It is further stated that Person of Indian Origin Card is issued to those persons who hold a E No.220/11 Page 4 of 19 passport of another country. It is further stated that the son of the petitioner is not the Indian citizen. It is further stated that petitioner is running a business of call centre form the first floor of the property bearing no. A11, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi for which the physical presence of the petitioner is not necessary and the certificate which has filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition clearly shows that the registered office of M/s. Sonitek Consultancy Private Limited is situated at 8, Double Storey, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Lastly prayer for granting the leave to contest the petition has been made on the ground that site plan which was filed by respondent is the correct site plan wherein tenanted shops have been shown as shop no.1, 2 and 3 supported with electricity bills.
4. Reply to application as well as counter affidavit filed wherein grounds for leave to defend has been denied and reiterated the contents of the petition. It is submitted by the petitioner that respondent has not filed any counter site plan to show that the suit premises (shops) are distinct in nature and does not form part of property bearing no. A11, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. It is also submitted that the shops bearing no 5 & 6 are private numbers being mentioned solely for the purpose of convenience of the tenants and the landlord as there are other tenants. It is further submitted that identity of the shops having been not challenged nor the respondent has placed on record any document to show that the suit shops are in possession of some other person, the alleged defence that the private shops no. 1, 2 and 3 does not carry any weight. It is also submitted that the deceased mother of the petitioner being the previous landlady also never issued any rent receipts in favour of the E No.220/11 Page 5 of 19 respondent's firm whereby mentioned internal shops no. 1, 2 and 3. It is further stated that petitioner is the owner of the suit property and petitioner has cleared/settled all the disputes regarding the arrears of House tax of MCD as such there is no attachment of rent. It is further stated that the certificate of incorporation of the petitioner's company is situated at 8, Double Storey, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was the previous address and the petitioner was/is not the owner of the said property at any point of time and the first floor of the property A11 cannot be used for commercial purposes as per MCD Master Plan and therefore the petitioner requires the commercial place on the ground floor. Lastly stated that respondent has failed to disclose any triable issues therefore, the application of the respondent is liable to be rejected and an eviction order is to be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
5. I have heard the Ld. counsels for parties and perused the case file. There is no dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent, rate of rent and the induction of respondent as tenant since respondent failed to produce any document except letter dated 27.04.2011 issued by MCD regarding release of rent but it is not out of mention to place here that the letter was issued for nonpayment of property tax. Further para 4 of leave to defend application has been properly replied in reply to leave to defend application stating that all dispute regarding arrears of House Tax of MCD has been cleared and settled which is supported with affidavit. Moreover, photocopy of registered relinquishment deed of other two LRs i.e. Smt. Sarita Handa and Sh. Sumit Pal Soni in favour of petitioner filed and also E No.220/11 Page 6 of 19 placed photocopy of rent receipt issued by his mother. In judgment titled as Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors. reported in 155 (2008) DLT 383 It is settled law that for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than a tenant. In this case, the landlady had placed on record the documents by which she became owner. The attornment given by the erstwhile landlord in her favour as well as an admission made by the tenant by filing petition under Section 27 of DRC Act acknowledging the landlordship of landlady. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the ARC regarding ownership and relationship of landlord and tenant were based on sound legal position and the cogent material before it.
6. The first contention of the respondent is that the site plan filed by the petitioner is wrong and respondent's firm is the tenant in respect of shop no. 1, 2 and 3 whereas the present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner for eviction from the shop no. 5 & 6 as such petitioner did not approach to the Hon'ble Court with clean hands and in this regard relied upon electricity bill of the tenanted shops which is otherwise in the name of the erstwhile owner. Moreover petitioner has admitted site plan of respondent except internal numbers while dispose off the application U/sec. 151 CPC during the proceedings and contended that the shops bearing no 5 & 6 are private E No.220/11 Page 7 of 19 numbers being mentioned solely for the purpose of convenience of the tenants and the landlord given by respondent himself as there are other tenants in the suit property bearing no. A11, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Further more the measurement and the portion are similar to the portion of the tenanted shops as per site plan filed by petitioner and relied upon the judgment titled as Krishan Kumar vs. Neelam Devi reported in 192 (2012) DLT 371 wherein it has been held: Correction of Errors - Permission to file fresh site plan giving correct details of disputed premises - Suit for possession and permanent injunction - In execution proceedings, bailiff executed decree only qua ground floor as site plan shows only ground floor portion - Decree had been passed qua ground floor portion and not qua first floor portion - Plaintiff filed application under Sections 151 and 152, CPC stating that this was a clerical mistake which is liable to be corrected - There was no misunderstanding or confusion Portion of the premises in occupation of tenant was not in dispute merely because of an inadvertence, if plaintiff did not file complete site plan showing first floor of premises as well although it specifically finds mention in his plaint - Impugned order correctly noted that this is liable to be corrected under provisions of Section 152, CPC - Parties could not be relegated to fresh litigation.
Correction of clerical or arithmetical errors, mistakes which are accidental and not intentional and would not affect merits of case would fall within the parameters of Section 151 and 152, CPC - Scope of powers under Sections 151 and 152, CPC includes powers of Court in this regard. E No.220/11 Page 8 of 19
So, I am of the considered view that this plea of the respondent does not raise any triable issue which disentitled the petitioner from the recovery of possession in as much as it is specific mentioned in the petition that the petitioner has no other suitable commercial property available with him, and the portion in which respondent is in possession required bonafidely by the petitioner to start his own business as well as for his son moreover no contrary document has been placed on record on behalf of respondent in support of his contention except site plan only mentioning the number as 1, 2 & 3 which is otherwise admitted by the petitioner on the ground that private number of shop is given by respondent and moreover photocopy of rent receipt is admitted by the respondent wherein surprisingly no numbers of shop is given or mentioned. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case tiled as Hari Shanker Vs. Madan Mohan Gupta, 111 (2004) DLT 534 'Summary procedure in Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be defeated by merely making frivolous and vague allegations which can never be substantiated."
Thus, on the basis of the above said caselaw the contention of the respondent is rejected as the same is a mere assertion without any substance.
7. The next contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has filed the false, frivolous and legally not maintainable eviction petition with intention to E No.220/11 Page 9 of 19 harass the respondent and the petitioner does not require the tenanted shops for his bonafide need or for his son as the petitioner is the Canadian Citizen and permanently settled as well as running his business in Canada and the son of petition is not the Indian citizen hence doing business from the tenanted shops does not seems to be genuine. In this regard respondent relied upon the judgment titled as Satpal Vs. Sahi Ram RC. Rev. 25/2010 and another judgment titled as Chander Sain Berry Vs. Dr. Avinash Mithal reported in 67 (1997) DLT 208. But this contention of the respondent is not tenable because the landlord is the best judge of his requirements and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to where he should run his business. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishi Kumar Govil Vs. Maqsoodan, 2007 (1) RCR (Rent) 405 "It is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for the business which is most suitable for him. He has complete freedom in the matter."
In case title as Nireanjan Deva Tagal, AIR 1982 (SC 1518 S. K. Dey Vs. D. C. Gogerna, 1984 (2) RCR 615, (referred) "Choice of landlord to reside in particular premisesWeight age to, ScopeBona fide requirementEviction of tenant sought for on ground of bona fide requirementNot for tenant to dictate terms as how and where the landlady should live."
Similarly in the present case the petitioner has the complete freedom to E No.220/11 Page 10 of 19 choose the most suitable accommodation for setting up business of his son and the respondent could not dictate terms to the petitioner/landlord. Moreover it is specific averted by the petitioner that the tenanted shops are bonafidely required by him for set up a business for his son as he does not have any other alternative accommodation in which he can set up the business for his son namely Puneet Pal soni who is pursuing M.B.A from Singapore and is interested to open his L.P.O (Legal Processing Office) as such the petitioner needs the tenanted shops bonafidely for setting up business for his son which are having great commercial value and on account of the steep cost of commercial office/unit and high rental, petitioner is not in a position to afford the monthly rents and other ancillary expenses.
So far as the judgment placed by Ld. counsel for respondent concerned i.e. Satpal Vs. Sahi Ram RC. Rev. 25/2010 (unreported) wherein leave to contest has been granted while relying upon the judgment tiled as Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh, JT 2001 (1) SC 308 which is not applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the present case in as much as it is ruled out in case titled as Bata India Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar Bahl reported in 189 (2010) DLT 680:
"On the basis of documentary evidence also pleadings between parties, ARC rightly concluded that respondent was the owner and landlord of disputed premises - Apart from DDA accommodation where family of landlord is residing, there is no other commercial space available with landlord - Need of the landlord in these circumstances, to enable his daughter to start a business in shop at Pahar Ganj which is owned by landlord and being in a viable commercial area, in the hub of city, would be E No.220/11 Page 11 of 19 profitably commercial venture - Eviction petition being decreed and application seeking leave to defend declined by impugned order suffers from no infirmity."
Further in para 17 of the judgment i.e. Bata India Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar Bahl reported in 189 (2010) DLT 680 Hon'ble High Court distincts how the judgment titled as Inderjeet Kaur V. Nirpal Singh is not applicable in that case.
So I am of the similar considered view that the ratio of judgment of Inderjeet Kaur V. Nirpal Singh, JT 2001 (1) SC 308 is not applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the present case in as much as the petitioner specifically mentioned in his petition duly supported with affidavit that he was the Managing Director/Promoter of a company namely M/s Sonitek Consultancy Private Ltd. which was registered under the Indian Companies Act on 14.05.2003 and also holding the Person of Indian Origin (PIO) Card and also specifically averted that he has been regularly visiting India. Further it is not out of mention to place here that the property in question also required bonafidely by the petitioner for setting up of business of his son namely Puneet Pal Soni who is pursuing MBA from Singapore and interested to open his L.P.O (Legal Processing Office) as he is having requisite qualification to run the same. Moreover the tenanted shops are situated adjacent to Ring Road, Delhi having commercial value as such more suitable to the petitioner for the purpose of starting business. In this regard reliance can be placed on the judgment titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance E No.220/11 Page 12 of 19 Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 wherein it has been held:
"The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14 (1) of Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavor as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself"
Further in judgment case titled as Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das, 2009(2) RCR 455 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that:
"We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. many people start new business even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business." E No.220/11 Page 13 of 19
Moreover in recent judgment titled as Inderjeet Singh Vs. Harish Chandra Bhutani, 192 (2012) DLT 124 wherein it has been held:
"Triable issue as sought to be raised cannot be and should in a routine manner be granted - Landlord is the best judge of his requirement and cannot be deprived of this right Additional Rent Controller passed cryptic order without assessing the facts and circumstances of case and has not given any reasoning as to rationale behind allowing leave to defend application in absence of any cogent triable issues - Impugned order granting leave to defend to respondent without any prima facie case being established by respondent suffers from infirmity and cannot be upheld."
Also in Sh. Labhu Lal Vs. Smt. Sandhya Gupta, 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 115 wherein it has been held: Landlord sought eviction on the ground that he requires demised premises for expanding clinic of his children (son and daughterinlaw) - Tenant contended that children are not dependant on landlord as they are having independent sources of income - Contention repelled - Not disputed that children are running clinic in rear portion of demised premises - Children are very much dependent upon landlord for requirement of premises for the purpose of expansion of clinic - Hence, need bonafide - Eviction granted.
In case titled as Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rishi Prakash 2009 (2) RCR 485 E No.220/11 Page 14 of 19 wherein it is held that:
"Landlord entitled to evict tenant on the ground that he required premises for office of his Advocate son."
A. Leave to defend Bona fide required - Land lord filing petition for eviction of tenant on the ground that he required the premises for office of his Advocate son - Contention of tenant that son was having his office in certain other property - This was a bold statement without supporting material and does not give rise to a triable issue entitling tenant for leave to defend.
1. When the leave to defend is sought by the tenant he must make out a prima facie case raising such pleas from which a triable issue would emerge.
2. A bald statement without anything more is no ground to grant leave to defend to tenant.
3. Leave to defend dismissed - Order of ejectment passed - The tenanted accommodation was the most suitable to meet the requirement of the petitioner's Advocate son to set up his profession office - The need of the petitioner as made out appears to be since and honest and not a mere presence or pretext to evict the respondent tenant.
B. Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 14 (1) (e) - Petition for eviction Ingredients of provision not pleaded - Held
1. Mere failure to plead even the necessary ingredients in an eviction petition is not fatal to its maintainability.
2. Pleadings are loosely drafted in the Courts and the Courts should not scrutinise the pleading with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine E No.220/11 Page 15 of 19 claims being defeated on trivial grounds. AIR 1976 SC 461 relied. C. Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 14 (1) (e) - Leave to defend - Petition for eviction - Leave to defend granted to tenant - Revision before High Court - It is not for High Court to take the scope of these proceedings is to examine whether the impugned order had been passed in accordance with the law, that is, in accordance with the established principles of law - It is the approach of the learned Rent Controller which is under examination, to see, whether it is misdirected or not.
D. Delhi Rent Control Act 14(1)(e) - Leave to defend Bonafide requirement - Petition for eviction - Tenant seeking leave to defend - Tenants try to raise triable issues even if there is none - This is so because upon grant of leave to defend, the eviction proceedings are likely to take considerable time for disposal as a regular trial would ensue.
E. Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 14 (1) (e) - Bonafide requirement - Landlord seeking eviction of tenant on the ground that he wanted premises for commercial use - Extent of residential accommodation available with the landlord is wholly irrelevant.
F. Civil Procedure Code, Order 6 Rule 2 - Pleadings - Pleadings are loosely drafted in the Courts and the Courts should not scrutinise the pleading with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on trivial grounds.
G. Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 14(1)(e) - Bona fide requirement - Title - Ownership - Landlord seeking eviction of tenant on ground of bonafide requirement under section 14 (1) (e) To maintain petition under section 14(1) E No.220/11 Page 16 of 19
(e), landlord should not be an absolute owner of property - It is sufficient if the landlord is a person who is collecting the rent on his own behalf and, if the premises are vacated, he is entitled to retain possession of it on his own.
In case titled as Tahira Begum Vs. Sumitar Kaur & Anr. 2010 (1) RCR 338 wherein it has been held: Section 25 B (5) requires the Controller to grant leave to contest only if affidavit of tenant disclose such "facts" as would disentitle landlord from obtaining an Order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) However, if what is disclosed is only a legal defence or legal plea, not required to be proved, then no leave to contest to be granted - In the instant case fact of ownership can be adjudicated on the basis of existing material on record - Hence, Order granted leave to contest setaside Eviction granted.
In Ramesh Chand Gulati & Anr. Vs. Rajinder Kumar Gulati & Anr. reported in 190 (2012) DLT 222 wherein it has been held by Hon'ble High Court: No triable issue has arise - Court cannot grant leave to defend in a routine or mechanical manner - Petitioner has been able to establish that he has no other alternative suitable accommodation from where he can run his business, his bona fide need has been established - Assertions made by respondent in application seeking leave to defend do not raise any triable issue
- All averments asserted in application seeking leave to defend were in fact details disclosed by landlord himself in his eviction petition - Impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
E No.220/11 Page 17 of 19
In judgment tiled as Mohd. Zafar Vs. Abdul Arafin, reported in 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 21 it has been held by Hon'ble High Court: Before leave to defend is granted, the respondent must show that some triable issues which disentitled the applicant from getting the order of eviction against the respondent and at the same time entitled the respondent to leave to defend existed - The onus is prima facie on the respondent and if he fails, the eviction follows. 2002 (1)RCR (Rent) 610; 1982(2) RCR(Rent) 199, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 698 relied.
8. Thus in view of the judgments discussed above, allegation/contention of the respondent regarding need of the petitioner is not bonafide is rejected being bald allegation without any material to substantiate the same. Moreover I am of the considered view that there is nothing malafide if son of petitioner wants to start his own business who is dependent upon the petitioner as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in judgment titled as Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal reported in 2002(1) RCR 582:
Landlord required nonresidential premises for the office of his son who is chartered accountant - Need bonafide - It will be considered requirement of landlord for his own use under Section 13(3)(a)(ii).
So, in the present case, petitioner required the tenanted shops for the purpose of setting up of business for his son as such it appears that he wanted E No.220/11 Page 18 of 19 to increase his financial status and his standard of living. It is also not out of mention to place here that the tenant cannot stop his landlord from starting any business for increasing his income & tenant cannot create clog on the extension of business of landlord or dictate terms to the landlord. It is held in Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar, 2007 (1) RCR (Rent) 417, that "Bonafide requirement Landlord seeking eviction of tenant from shop for manufacturing of trunks - Contention of tenant, need of landlord was not bonafide as he was already running the manufacturing work in rented premises quite close by and was paying less rent - Contention of tenant repelled - Tenant cannot create clog on the extension of business of landlord or dictate terms to the landlord."
9. So, in the light of the aforesaid observations it is clear that the respondent has failed to raise any triable issue which, if proved would disentitile the petitioner/landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises, and therefore, the application of the respondent for leave to defend is dismissed and eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect to the shop no. 5 & 6, on the ground floor in property bearing no.11, BlockA, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan. However, in view of Sec. 14(7) of DRC Act, this order shall not be executed before the expiry of period of six months.
10. File be consigned to Record Room.
E No.220/11 Page 19 of 19
Announced in the open Court (Rakesh KumarIII)
on 24th November of 2012 ACJ/ARC(West)/24.11.2012
E No.220/11 Page 20 of 19