Delhi District Court
Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta vs Air India Ltd on 7 June, 2018
In the Court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, District & Sessions
Judge : New Delhi District:Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
In the matter of :
PPA No. 09/18
In the matter of :
Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Late Madan Lal Gupta
Shop No. 3, Market Complex
Air India Housing Colony
Vasant Vihar
New Delhi110057. ....Appellant
Versus
1. Air India Ltd.
IGI Airport Terminal1
Personal Division, Northern Region
New Delhi110037.
Also at :
Regd./Office Airlines House
113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road
New Delhi110001.
2. Sh. Sunil Raswant
Dy. General Manager (Personnel)/Estate Officer
Air India Limited
Northern Region, Tr.I, IGI Airport
New Delhi110037. .... Respondents
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 1 of 26
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF
UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS)
ACT, 1971 ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 22.02.2018
Date of filing of appeal : 05.03.2018
Arguments concluded on : 07.06.2018
Pronounced judgment on : 07.06.2018
J U D G M E N T :
1.0 Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the appeal of Sh.
Naresh Kumar Gupta, under section 9 of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ("the PP Act" in
short) against the order dated 22.02.2018 ("the impugned order"
in short) under Section 5 PP Act, directing the appellant and all
persons who may be in occupation of Shop No. 3, Air India
Housing Colony, Market Complex, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi110
057 ("the said shop" in short), to vacate the said shop within 15
days from the date of publication of the impugned order.
2.0 The facts in brief as per the appeal are that :
i) the appellant was granted lease of the said shop for
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 2 of 26
the purpose of running departmental store in market
complex in Air India Colony, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi,
vide Leave and License Agreement dated 04.10.2006,
by the respondent no.1 for a period of 10 years,
extendable for a further period of 10 years. Thereafter,
in October, 2016, the lease of the said shop was
extended for ten years and the rent was increased as per
the terms of the agreement;
ii) On 26.05.2017, a notice was issued to all the allottees
by Caretaker of Air India Colony stating that the roof of
the Chemist Shop (bearing shop no. 12) had collapsed
and the roofs of other shops also being old, the allottees
should take precautionary measures at their end as the
repair/restructuring at the respondent's end may take
some time;
iii) on 29.06.2017, the appellant along with other
allottees vide their application requested respondent
no.1 to take factum of extension of their license for next
ten years on record and for compliance of formalities at
the earliest but the respondent did not reply to the said
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 3 of 26
application;
iv) another notice dated 01.07.2017 was issued by the
Caretaker of the Colony asking the allottees to vacate
the premises as the shopping complex is structurally
unsafe as per the report of the Structural Engineer;
v) the appellant was shocked to receive a malafide
letter dated 29.08.2017 vide which the leave and license
agreement was terminated by one Sh. Rakesh Kumar,
Clerk, on behalf of GM (Personnel) stating that the lease
agreement stood determined on 03.10.2016 and that the
notices dated 26.05.2017 and 01.07.2017 had already
been issued for vacation of premises as structure of the
building had become unsafe as per the report of
Structural Engineer. Allottees of the Shopping
Complex protested against the illegal termination as it
was not possible to vacate the said shop. Respondent
no.1 asked them to give a written reply or alternatively
ask for extension of time;
vi) vide letter dated 18.09.2017, the appellant and
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 4 of 26
allottee of shop no.5, informed the respondent that they
have got examined the structure of their shops, which
are reported to be in habitable condition; and that there
was no urgency to ask the genuine allottees of the shops
to vacate the same, as the same would result in loss of
livelihood;
vii) the appellant's request for extension of time was
declined by the respondent vide reply dated 29.09.2017
on the ground of unsafe condition of the building.
Appellant received another letter dated 07.12.2017 for
vacation of shop;
viii) thereafter, a notice under Section 4 of the PP Act
was issued to the appellant, calling upon him to appear
before the Estate Officer on 05.02.2018. The appellant
vide his interim reply dated 05.02.2018 requested the
respondent to provide documents/evidence to enable
him to file reply on merits. On 05.02.2018, when the
appellant appeared before the Estate Officer, he was
provided with one report and office order. He was not
given an opportunity to file reply or lead evidence or
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 5 of 26
being heard. The appellant immediately lodged protest
vide letter dated 06.02.2018;
ix) on 18.02.2018, the appellant received a letter dated
16.02.2018, informing about the date of hearing of
21.02.2018. The appellant vide his letter dated
19.02.2018 informed the respondent about his inability
to appear before the Estate Officer on 21.02.2018 as he
would be out of Delhi on account of marriage in his
family. But the Estate Officer proceeded to pass the
impugned order dated 22.02.2018. The impugned order
was therefore, passed is exparte and is liable to be set
aside.
2.1 The appellant has challenged the impugned order inter
alia on the grounds that :
i) the Estate Officer failed to appreciate that the absence
of the appellant on the date fixed i.e. 21.02.2018 was
not deliberate or intentional as he was out of Delhi due
to marriage in the family, which was duly informed by
the appellant vide his letter dated 19.02.2018;
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 6 of 26
ii) the Estate Officer failed to appreciate that the said
shop was the only source of employment for appellant;
iii) the impugned order is based on surmises and
conjectures and has caused irreparable loss and injury to
the appellant without any fault on his part;
iv) the respondent no.2 was not authorised/competent to
act as the Estate Officer and therefore, the proceedings
conducted by him are null and void and impugned order
needs to be set aside.
3.0 The respondent on the other hand, has sought
dismissal of the appeal, pleading that the appellant has not
approached this court with clean hands and has suppressed the
material facts. The respondent has submitted that the appellant has
made a false averment that the licence was extended for a period of
10 years in October 2016. In fact, the licence was never renewed.
Nor was any assurance for renewal given. Rather, the appellant and
other occupants of similar shops were repeatedly asked to vacate
the shops in view of collapsing of roof of Shop No. 12.
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 7 of 26
3.1 The respondent also submitted that after the said
incident, the Shopping Complex was inspected by the Structural
Engineer. After confirmation of the weak structure of the shopping
complex by the government approved Structural Engineer,
respondent/Air India, had decided to get the shops in the said
complex vacated to avoid any risk to life and property. On
26.05.2017, a notice was issued to all the licencees / allottees of the
shops operating in the said complex about the weak structure of the
shops and were cautioned. Subsequently another notice dated
01.07.2017 was issued to the appellant calling upon him to vacate
the said shop to avoid any untoward incident/accident. But to no
avail. Thereafter, in terms of Clause 10 of the Leave and Licence
Agreement, the licence was terminated vide notice/letter dated
29.08.2017 giving 30 days' time to the appellant to vacate. Even
thereafter, further notices dated 29.09.2017 & 07.12.2017 were
issued to the appellant by the respondent/Air India clearly
conveying its decision to get the said shop vacated and also that in
case of failure to do so, proceedings for eviction under PP Act
would be initiated against the appellant.
3.2 It is further submitted by the respondent that no
assurance of renewal of the Leave and Licence Agreement was ever
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 8 of 26
given. Even otherwise, in absence of any renewal, the licence stood
determined in the present case on 03.10.2016 by efflux of time.
Once the term of license came to an end/the same was terminated,
the appellant's occupation of the said shop became unlawful. The
Estate Officer has thus, rightly passed the impugned order of
eviction, after giving due opportunity of hearing.
4.0 I have heard Ms.Vandana Bhatnagar, Ld. Counsel for
the appellant and Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Sh.Kamal Kant Tyagi and Sh.
Neeraj Redhu, Ld. Counsel for respondent. and have perused the
record carefully.
5.0 Admittedly, the said shop was allotted to the appellant
vide Leave and License Agreement dated 04.10.2006 for a period
of 10 years w.e.f.04.10.2006 till 03.10.2016.The appellant's case is,
that in October 2016,the licence was renewed for a further period of
ten years but,formalities in that respect were not completed despite
repeated requests of the appellant.The respondent has denied that
the said licence was even extended after 03.10.2016. The appellant
has failed to place on record any material to show that the said
licence was renewed further or any assurance for renewal was given
by the respondent. Rather, the appellant himself has submitted in
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 9 of 26
the appeal that the respondent did not respond to his request made
vide letter dated 29.06.2017, to complete the formalities for
extension of the licence. In view of the same, I am inclined to
accept the respondent's contention that the licence came to an end
on 03.10.2016, by efflux of time. It would be pertinent to mention
here that the Hon'ble High Court in DSIDC Ltd. V. K.C. Bothra &
Ors. 108 (2003) DLT 447, held that the moment the licence is
withdrawn or comes to an end, occupation of such person
becomes unauthorized; and that when licence expires by efflux of
time, no notice for termination of licence was required.
5.1 Even otherwise, the appellant himself has stated that
vide letter dated 29.08.2017, the licence was terminated. Let me
refer here to the respondent's letter dated 29.08.2017, which is
reproduced as under :
"Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta
Licensee, Shop No.3
Air India Housing Colony
Market Complex
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi57.
DIR/Estates/AIHCShops/1187 Date : 29.08.2017
Subject : Termination of Leave and Licence Agreement
Dear Sir,
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 10 of 26
This is with reference to the Leave and Licence Agreement dated 04.10.2006
(hereinafter referred to as "Agreement"). Vide said Agreement you were allotted
Shop No. 3....... for the period of 10 years starting from 04.10.2006 till
03.10.2016....
The Agreement stood determined on 03.10.2016. Notices have already been
issued to you on 26.05.2017 and 01.07.2017 for vacation of the said premises as
the structure of the building has become unsafe. However, you are illegally
continuing to occupy the shop and have failed to vacate the same. Although no
fresh notice is required to be given for vacation of Shop No.3, you are again
called upon to vacate the Shop No. 3 within 30 days of receipt of this letter,
failing which necessay eviction proceedings along with the recovery of damages
for unlawful occupation in terms of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971, will be initiated....."
5.2 Even thereafter, admittedly, two more notices dated
29.09.2017 and 07.12.2017 were issued to the appellant, which read
as under :
"DIR/Estates/AIHCShops/1225 Date : 29.09.2017
Subject : Termination of Leave and Licence Agreement
Dear Sir,
This has reference to your letter dated 18.09.2017.
During the meeting held with GM (P) in the first week of September'17, consequent
upon the notice served for vacation, all the representative licensees were briefed
about the situation necessitating the vacation of the shops.
In view of the unsafe condition of the Shopping Complex, we are unable to
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 11 of 26
consider the request for any extension.
You are advised to vacate the shop as already notified, else the eviction procees in
terms of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, will be
initiated."
5.2.1 Letter/Notice dated 07.12.2017 reads as under :
"DIR/Estates/AIHCShops/1283 Date : 07.12.2017
Subject : Termination of Leave and Licence Agreement
Dear Sir,
Please refer our earlier letters sent to you vide Ref. Nos. DIR/AIHCShops/1187
dated 29.08.2017 and DIR/AIHC/Shops/1225 dated 29.09.2017 wherein you were
advised to vacate the Shop No. 3 because of the unsafe condition of the Shopping
Complex Building.
You have not vacated the Shop No. 3 in spite of being aware of the fact that the
Leave and Licence Agreement pertaining to the Shop has already expired on
03.10.2016 and Air India is not in a position to extend the Agreement in view of the
unsafe condition of the Shopping Complex Building.
You are once again advised to vacate the Shop No. 3 on or before 31.12.2017
and hand over the vacant possession of the Shop to the Caretaker of Air India
Housing Colony, failing which the eviction procees in terms of Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, will be initiated against you."
5.3 From the above letters, it is evident that the appellant's
request for extension of licence was declined and the respondent
duly communicated its intention and inability, not to extend the
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 12 of 26
licence any further, particularly, in view of the unsafe condition of
the building. The appellant was even called upon to vacate the said
shop within 30 days of receipt of the said letters. The aforesaid
letters also made it clear that in case the appellant failed to hand
over the vacant possession, the proceedings for eviction and
recovery of damages under PP Act shall be initiated against him.
Admittedly, the said shop has not been vacated by the appellant till
date.Accordingly,the proceedings for eviction were initiated against
the appellant, culminating in the passing of the impugned order.
5.4 Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that as per Clause
2(b) of Leave and Licence Agreement, the respondent was duty
bound to extend the licence for a further period of 10 years.
Although the said shop is very much habitable, the inhabitability of
the said complex has been taken as a ploy by the respondent to evict
the lawful occupants/allottees. Same is refuted by the respondent.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the licence could not
have been extended, the building of the shopping complex having
been rendered structurally unsafe. In this respect, Ld. Counsel has
drawn my attention to the report of the Engineer, available in the
Estate Officer's record. Ld. Counsel also submitted that even
otherwise, the respondent could terminate the licence without
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 13 of 26
assigning any reason by giving 30 days notice as per Clause 10 of
the Leave and Licence Agreement.
5.4.1 The fact that the building in which the said shop is
situated, was declared structurally unsafe/dangerous is borne out
from the Site Inspection Report. The relevant portion of the said
report reads under :
"PERCEPTIONS 11/65, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad
Structural & Project Management Consultants Ph.0980575453
SITE INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection Report for structural safety of Shopping Complex Building at AI
Residential Colony, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
I along with Sr. AGM (Pers.), AGM (P&F) and Caretaker of the AI Housing
Colony, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, inspected on 09.06.2017....... The roof of the
Shop No. 12 & 13 has been collapsed suddenly. I have inspected building
thoroughly in all angle for the structural safety and overall condition of the
Building. My observation is as under :
a) The single storied building is above 42 years old.
b) Load Bearing Brick masonary structure building and over all condition is
very bad.
c) Block B of the building is in pathetic & dangerous condition due to old age.
d) Internal Condition : The concrete ceiling / Roof peeling out and most of the
reinforcement visible was rusted and reduced in section.
e) Cracks have been developed almost all columns.
f) Water Proofing / Mud Phaska of entire building has been outlive of its known life
span.
g) All external plaster has been damaged.
PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 14 of 26
h) Painting is not done left couple of years.
In view of the above observation, my suggestion is as under :
i) 1st suggestion : As the Building is single storied, it is better to knock down the
complete structure and rebuild the building with latest norms.
ii) Alternative Suggestion : If you retain the building a major rehabilitation &
Strengthening is required to make the building safe. Based on the observations
approx. estimated cost is Rs.40.00 Lacs. Detail estimated will be provided
separately with detail scope of work....."
5.4.2 In view of the above, I find no force in the appellant's
contention that the said shop is habitable/safe to occupy and that the
plea of inhabitability taken by the respondent, is only a ploy.
5.5 Further,perusal of the Leave and Licence Agreement
shows that although, Clause 2(b) mentions that the licence shall be
extendable for a period of 10 years, Clause 10 makes it clear that
the respondent was within its rights to determine the licence
without assigning any reasons by issuing 30 days notice. The
Clauses 2(b) & 10 of Leave and Licence Agreement read as under:
"2(b). The licence shall be extendable for a period of 10 years on the terms and
conditions mutually agreed upon between the parties.
.......
10. Notwithstanding any thing herein contained, IAL shall be entitled at any time to determine the licence by 30 days notice without assigning any reason.
PPA No. 09/18Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 15 of 26 5.6 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appellant has failed to demonstrate his authority to occupy the said shop in absence of any further renewal after expiry of the licence on 03.10.2016. It is a settled position of law that the onus is upon the occupant to show his authority to occupy the public premises after expiry of licence (UOI vs S.M. Agarwal & Ors., 1995(II) AD(Delhi) 293 (Division Bench). In view of the same, I find no infirmity in the finding of the Estate Officer that the appellant became unauthorized occupant of the said shop after 03.10.2016.
6.0 The appellant has further contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same was passed without giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
6.1 Admittedly, in response to notice under Section 4 PP Act, the appellant himself had appeared before the Estate Officer on 05.02.2018. Vide said notice, the appellant was required to show cause why he be not evicted; and to appear alongwith whatever material he intended to produce in support of the cause shown. The appellant admittedly filed a written reply (titled as 'Interim reply' )to notice u/s 4(1) & 4(2)(b)(ii). The appellant himself has admitted in PPA No. 09/18 Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 16 of 26 his appeal that at his request, the appellant was even supplied a copy of report(Site Inspection Report for structural safety of Shopping Complex) and an office order (with respect to appointment of the Estate Officer.) The relevant portion of the said proceedings reads as under :
"Record of hearing held on 05.02.20181000 Hrs:
The licencee Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta confirmed that he is appearing for the said hearing by himself.....Further Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta confirmed having understood contents of the the Form A (Notice) issued vide letter no. DIR/Estates/2018/1349 dated 16.01.2018, which was received by himself on 17.01.2018. In view of said notice Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta made a written submission which is being put on record.
In view of the submission made above : * Copy of the Site Inspection Report (Summary) for Structural Safety of Shopping Complex Building in Air India Colony, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi from M/s G.C. Sharma and Sons (2 Folios) was shown/handedover to Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta. * Copy of letter No. DEL/GMP/Estate/516, Dated 19.09.2016 appointing Estate Officer was shown/Handedover to Shri Naresh Gupta During the hearing Shri Naresh Kumr Gupta agreed that the Leave & License Agreement in respect of Shop No.3 allotted to him stood determined on 03.10.2016 and he was in receipt of the various notices issued as under which he has fully read/understood: Vide letter NoDIR/Estate/AIHCShops/1187 Dated:29.08.2017 Vide letter NoDIR/Estate/AIHCShops/1225 Dated:29.09.2017 Vide letter NoDIR/Estate/AIHCShops/1283 Dated:07.12.2017 Vide letter NoDIR/Estate/AIHCShops/1349 Dated:16.01.2018 PPA No. 09/18 Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 17 of 26 After hearing Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, he was told that his term of the agreement lapsed on 03.10.2016. By making any subsequent payments towards rent or toward the services consumed (electricity/water) Air India Ltd. Does not loses its right to get the shop vacated as per Para 10 of the agreement.....IAL shall be entitled at any time to determine the licence by 30 days notice without assigning any reason"......
.....
The licencee Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta was asked if he has got anything further to add or state in connection with the hearing thus held in reference to the Form A (Notice) issued vide letter no. DIR/Estates/2018/1349 dated 16.01.2018. Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta submitted that he has nothing else to say against the said Notice of Eviction.
The proceedings stands concluded here. The decision taken in view of the Above shall be conveyed to the licensee Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta s/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Gupta in due course.
...."
6.2 From the above, it is seen that due hearing was given to the appellant. He was even supplied the documents, as requested. The appellant even stated that he did not wish to make any further submission. Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the reply filed by the appellant was only an interim reply and it has been mentioned in the said reply that he should be granted reasonable time to file reply on merits.
6.2.1 Admittedly, even thereafter, in view of the appellant's PPA No. 09/18 Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 18 of 26 request vide letter dated 06.02.2018 for further hearing, the Estate Officer vide letter dated 16.02.2018 gave 21.02.2018 as further date of hearing, mentioning that although, due opportunity has already been given, further hearing was being granted. It is seen from the Estate Officer's record that none appeared on behalf of appellant before the Estate Officer on 21.02.2018. In view of the same, the matter was reserved for order. Subsequently, the impugned order was passed on 22.02.2018.
6.2.2 Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant vide his letter dated 19.02.2018 had requested for some other date as he was to attend a wedding outside Delhi on 21.02.2018. The Estate Officer ignored the said request and proceeded to pass the impugned order. Ld. Counsel for the respondent in this respect submitted that no such letter of request for adjounment was received by the Estate Officer. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the said letter was sent by the registered AD and placed on record, a copy of his letter dated 19.02.2018 along with copy of receipt of despatch by the registered AD. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that no such letter was received by the Estate Officer before passing of the impugned order.
PPA No. 09/18Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 19 of 26 6.3 Perusal of the Estate Officer's record reveals that there is no such letter on the record. The said letter having been sent by registered post on 19.02.2018, possibility of the same having not been received by the Estate Officer before passing of the impugned order cannot be ruled out particularly, in view of the proceedings recorded on 21.02.2018. Relevant portion of which reads as under:
"Record of hearing held on 21.02.20181430Hrs:
In Continuation of hearing held on 05.02.2018..... On receipt of representation dated 06.02.2018 by post from Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta kept on record as Exhibit B wherein he requested for further hearing opportunity, he was given opportunity vide letter DIR/Estates/2018/1370 dated 16th February, 2018 to appear for hearing on 21.02.2018 at 1430Hrs......
.....On 21.02.20181430 Hrs., the Licencee Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sh.Madan Lal Gupta did not turn up without any intimation. The Air India side was representated by Shri Avinash Kumar Sharma, Asst.Manager(Pers) accompanied by two advocates as stated above....."
6.4 Be that as it may. It may be mentioned that vide notice under Section 4 PP Act, the appellant was called upon to show cause and to appear before the Estate officer on 05.02.2018 along with evidence, he wished to produce in support of the cause shown.
PPA No. 09/18Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 20 of 26 The appellant was thus required to make submissions/produce evidence to show his authority to occupy the said shop, on the date fixed. The appellant had even filed reply running into 6 pages, though titled as 'Interim Reply', making detailed submissions. Even if for a while, the appellant's contention that he wished to make further submission and has been deprived of the opportunity of hearing is accepted. Ld. Counsel for the appellant was called upon to apprise further submissions/evidence, the appellant wished to make/lead.
6.5 Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant's tenancy was never duly terminated, although the letters dated 29.08.2017,18.09.2017 & 29.09.2017 are titled as termination of leave and licence agreement. Because, the said letters were issued by one Mr. Rakesh Kumar, who is a Clerk. The leave and licence was granted in favour of the appellant under the signatures of Sr. Manager (Personnel); it could not have been terminated by an official lower in rank. Therefore, the letter of termination of licence dated 29.08.2017 by Mr.Rakesh Kumar was without any authority. Further, the fact of building being unsafe, cannot be a ground for eviction.Therefore, notice u/s 4 PP Act itself needed to be set aside.
PPA No. 09/18Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 21 of 26 6.6 It is seen that termination letters/notice for handing over vacant possession were signed by an official (name not mentioned) on behalf of the General Manager. Hence, there is no force in the appellant's contention that the termination of licence was without any authority. Be that as it may. Even otherwise, as already noted above, in absence of any further renewal, the licence stood determined on 03.10.2016, by efflux of time.
6.7 Ld. Counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant was deprived of an opportunity to lead evidence to show that the said shop is safe to occupy. As already discussed in preceding paras, the Engineer's report has specifically mentioned that the Shopping Complex, in which the said shop is situated, has been rendered structurally unsafe/dangerous. Ld. Counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments, even placed on record, copies of the photographs showing roof/ceiling of certain shops having given way and the iron shuttering is showing. Even if the said report is ignored for a while, the appellant has failed to show his authority to occupy the said shop once the licence of the same expired by efflux of time and the same was not renewed any further.
6.8 In view of the above, even if the matter is remanded PPA No. 09/18 Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 22 of 26 back to the Estate Officer for providing further hearing, no purpose would be served.
7.0 The appellant has also contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the Estate Officer was not competent. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that Sh. Sunil Raswant being DGM (Personnel) was competent to act as the Estate Officer and has placed on record, a copy of the Gazette Notification No. S.O.1682 dated 11.07.2017. The said notification reads as under :
"S.O. 1682 - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) At, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, notification number S.O. 3066 dated 21 November 2014, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such suppression, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, being officers equivalent to the rank of the Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be estate officer for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the power conferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate officers by or under the said Act, within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (3) of the said Table.
TABLE Sl. Designation of officer Categories of public premises No. 2 Assistant General Manager All residential premises belonging (Personnel), Senior Assistant General to or taken on lease by or on behalf Manager (Personnel), Deputy General of Air India Limited in the Manager (Personnel), Personnel National capital territory of Delhi Department, Northern Region, Air and the States of Himachal Pradesh, India Limited, Indira Gandhi Jammu and Kashmir , Madhya PPA No. 09/18 Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 23 of 26 International Airport, New Delhi Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttrakhand, Uttar Pradesh and union territory of Chandigarh.
7 Assistant General Manager (Properties All premises other than residential and Facilities), Senior Assistant premises belonging to or taken on General Manager (Properties and lease by or on behalf of Air India Facilities), Deputy General Manager Limited in the National capital (Properties and Facilities), Properties territory of Delhi and the States of and Facilities, Northern Region, Air Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and India Limited, Indira Gandhi Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, International Airport, New Delhi Rajasthan, Uttrakhand, Uttar Pradesh and union territory of Chandigarh.
7.1 As per the above notification, Sh.Sunil Raswant, DGM(Personnel), was competent to act as Estate Officer.
7.2 Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the above notification pertains only to the residential premises. Hence, the Estate Officer was not competent to deal with the said shop, which is a commercial property.
7.3 In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the said shop is situated in a small shopping complex within the housing complex of Air India, which is primarily for catering to the residents of the flats in Air India Residential Colony. Same is therefore, a part of the residential premises. To demonstrate that the entire residential complex of Air India, of which the said shop is a part, at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, is identified as 'residential', Ld. PPA No. 09/18 Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 24 of 26 counsel placed on record, a copy of the property identification as available on SDMC website. Same reads as under :
Property ID / Details Address Property Type Owner Name 031148306360 HOUSING COLONY Residential Plotted Indian Airlines Ltd.
Indian Air Lines ColonyHOUSING COLONY, Ground Northern Region, Palam
Vasant Vihar Ward Floor, VASANT VIHAR, Indian Air Lines Palam, New Delhi
South Zone Clny, Delhi..110057
7.4 From the above, it is seen that the entire property (of
which the said shop is a part) is identified as "Residential Plotted"
in the records of SDMC. Ld. Counsel further clarified that the commerical properties of Air India are its booking offices, cargo complex etc. which fall within the jurisdiction of DGM (Property and Facilities). In support, he placed on record, list of properties in Northern region, with categorisation. As per the same, booking offices and Housingcumbooking offices are identified as 'non residential' and 'commercialcumresidential'.
8.0 In view of the above facts and circumstances and findings recorded in preceding paras, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
PPA No. 09/18Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 25 of 26 9.0 Ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that three months time be given to the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the said shop. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that he is unable to make any submissions in this respect, in absence of any instructions from the respondent. Request in this regard,if any may be made by the appellant to the respondent no.1. In view of these facts and circumstances, this court cannot pass directions as sought for.
10.0 Record of the Estate Officer be returned along with copy of this judgment.
11.0 Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed byPOONAM POONAM A BAMBA Dictated and announced in the open Court A BAMBA Date: 2018.06.07 16:32:38 +0530 on this 7th day of June,2018. (Poonam A. Bamba) District & Sessions Judge PHC, New Delhi District (ss) PPA No. 09/18 Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 26 of 26 PPA No. 09/18
Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 27 of 26 PPA No. 09/18 Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 28 of 26 PPA No. 09/18 Naresh Kumar Gupta V. Air India Ltd. Anr. Page No. 29 of 26