Delhi District Court
)Union Of India vs )The Estate Officer on 4 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
PPA No. 15/2018
1.)Union of India
Through Secretary
Postal Services Board & DG Postal Services
Ministry communication, information & Technology
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi110001.
2.)Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Department of Posts
New Delhi Central Division
Meghdoot Bhawan, New Delhi110001.
3.) The Post Master
Indian Post & Telegraph Department
Janpath Post Office
Bombay Life Building
NBlock, Connaught Circus
New Delhi110001. .....Appellants
Versus
1.)The Estate Officer
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Northern Zone Jeevan Prakash Bldg.
2nd Floor (Mezzanine)
25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg
New Delhi110001.
PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 1 of 24
2.)Life Insurance Corporation of India
Having its Northern Zonal Office at
Jeevan Bharti Building,TowerII
124, Cannaught Circus
New Delhi110001. .....Respondents
Date of filing : 24.04.2018
Date of arguments : 12.02.2021
Date of judgment : 04.03.2021
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of an appeal u/S 9 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ("PP Act" in short) challenging the impugned orders dated 31.01.2018 passed by Sh. M. L. Meena, Estate Officer, LIC of India Northern Zone, Jeevan Prakash Building, 2nd Floor (Mezzanine) 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi110001 whereby the Estate Officer has passed an order u/S 5 PP Act in case no.24/2015 & u/S 7 PP Act in case no.24(A)/2015. Vide impugned order u/S 5 PP Act in case no.24/2015, the appellants have been directed to vacate the premises i.e. area admeasuring 1425 sq.ft. or thereabout situated on the ground floor of Bombay Life Building, NBlock, Connaught Circus, New Delhi110001 within 15 days of the date of publication of the order. Vide PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 2 of 24 impugned order u/S 7 PP Act in case no.24(A)/2015, the appellants were directed to pay the damages @ Rs.2,85,000/pm w.e.f. 16.06.2015 till the vacant and peaceful possession is handed over to LIC of India. The Estate Officer has calculated the outstanding rent, service tax and damages with interest thereon at the sum of Rs.1,44,09,572/.
2. The facts in brief are that Life Insurance Corporation of India/petitioner is the owner of the property known as Bombay Life Building, NBlock, Connaught Circus, New Delhi110001. LIC let out an area admeasuring 1425 sq.ft. or thereabout situated on the ground floor of the aforesaid building to Union of India on 09.07.1976. The rent was enhanced from time to time. The plea of the LIC is that the appellants are in occupation of the premises in question at a monthly rent of Rs.52,796/ excluding electricity, water charges, other municipal charges and service tax. It is an admitted case that no lease deed was executed between the parties and it remained a monthly tenancy i.e. commencing on the 16th day of the English calendar month and ending on the 15 th day of the subsequent month.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ESTATE OFFICER
3. Ms. Nandita, Assistant Secretary (Legal & H.P.F.), PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 3 of 24 LIC filed a petition u/S 5 & 7 PP Act against the appellants/tenant alleging therein that the appellants are habitual defaulter in payment of the monthly rent, service tax, other dues and there were total dues of Rs.39,73,334/ on account of difference of rent for the period 16.12.1999 to 31.05.2004 and thereafter rent w.e.f. 01.06.2004 to 16.09.2004 @ Rs.34342.50/ pm, rent w.e.f. 17.09.2004 to 16.09.2009 @ Rs.40613/pm, rent w.e.f. 17.09.2009 to 31.05.2015 @ Rs.52796/pm, rent w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to 16.06.2015 @ Rs.52796/pm. It was also alleged that the appellants had also not paid the service tax on rent w.e.f. 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2015 and the appellants are liable to pay the interest on the delayed payment. A sum of Rs.4,48,401/ was also claimed as water charges upto 31.07.2015. The amount due Rs.39,73,334/ was reached after giving a credit of Rs.50,79,096/ on account of amount received unadjusted being insufficient. LIC sent a legal notice dated 14.05.2015 through their counsel Sh. Mohinder Singh terminating the tenancy of the appellants w.e.f. 15.06.2015 calling them upon to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises on 15.06.2015 or in the morning of 16.06.2015 failing which the appellants were liable to pay damages @ Rs.200/per sq.ft. per month i.e. amounting to Rs.2,85,000/pm. The said notice was duly served upon the PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 4 of 24 appellants. However, they failed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question. It was stated that rate of damages have been fixed keeping in view the location, use and other parameters as well as prevalent market rent of the area.
4. Upon this petition being filed, the Estate Officer issued a show cause notice dated 17.11.2015 to the appellants u/S 4 & 7 PP Act calling them upon to answer all material questions connected with matter alongwith evidence on 09.12.2015. The appellants filed a detailed reply stating that they have been paying the rent timely. The appellants/tenant took a plea that Janpath P.O. i.e. the tenanted premises is not working under Tropical building and therefore, the rates of Directorate of Estate (DOE) cannot be imposed for calculation of rent. Furthermore, DOE does not occupy any premises in Bombay Life building. The appellants further stated that the present petition is being filed only to harass them. It has further been submitted that LIC failed to carry out civil and repair work despite their repeated reminders. The appellants also pleaded that the petition is highly belated and cannot be allowed at this stage. The appellants took a plea that the rent of premises is Rs.34342.50/ pm w.e.f.16.11.2002 and the rent is being regularly paid in pursuance of circle office letter no.BDG/389 PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 5 of 24 dated 24.04.2006. The appellants stated that there is no due pending w.e.f. 1999 and the rent was increased from time to time and finally the rent was settled as Rs.34342.50/pm i.e. @ 24.10 per sq.ft w.e.f. 16.11.2002. It has further been submitted that the appellants/tenant have tried to settle the matter amicably but the LIC did not come forward.
5. The petitioner corporation filed rejoinder denying all the averments. The parties were given an opportunity to lead the evidence and the Estate Officer after recording the evidence of the parties in case no.24/2015 held the appellants unauthorized occupants w.e.f. 16.06.2015 and passed an eviction order u/S 5 PP Act. The Estate Officer in case no.24(A)/2015 u/S 7 PP Act held that the appellants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,44,09,572/ and directed the appellants to pay the said amount within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of this order failing which the amount will be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.
APPEAL
6. Aggrieved of the impugned orders, the appellants filed an appeal u/S 9 PP Act challenging the impugned orders on the ground that the proceedings before the Estate Officer were PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 6 of 24 initiated out of vengeance only in order to harass the appellants whereas the appellants had been paying the rent regularly. It has further been pleaded by the appellants that infact they are paying rent which is more than the rate fixed by DOE. In regard to water charges, it has been submitted that the entire arrears on account of water charges from 07.08.2000 to 31.12.2002 were paid as per communication dated 10.02.2003 and further directions were given for continuous payment. It has further been submitted that the LIC did not file any documentary evidence regarding default in payment of rent, service tax and other dues before the Estate Officer. The further plea of appellants is that they were already in negotiation with LIC for renewal of lease and therefore, the petitioner corporation had no right to terminate the tenancy and the Estate Officer also committed an error by holding the appellants unauthorized occupants. The plea was also taken for not carrying out civil and repair work by petitioner corporation on account of which the appellants themselves have to carry out the same. The appellants have stated that LIC/respondent no.2 cannot claim the rent for more than three years. It has been submitted that the Estate Officer has also committed a grave error of law in assessing the damages as there was no credible evidence being led by LIC in this regard. It has been submitted PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 7 of 24 that the Estate Officer has not followed the procedure prescribed in PP Act and awarded the rent from the period 16.12.1999 in violation of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in NDMC Vs Kalu Ram, (1976) 3 SCC 403.
7. The respondent no.2 filed reply stating therein that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as having been filed after expiry of the period of limitation. The respondent no.2 stated that in view of judgment in G.R.Gupta Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat, AIR 2013 Delhi 214 and L.S. Nayar Vs Hindustan Steel Limited, Bhilai and Ors., AIR 1980 MP 106, the Limitation Act has no application to the proceedings before the Estate Officer and therefore, the damages have rightly been awarded by the Estate Officer. The respondent no.2 further submitted that rent was enhanced from time to time on the basis of agreement reached with the appellants in a meeting between Zonal Rent Negotiation Committee of LIC and officials from Indian Post & Telegraph Department held on 24.02.2003 and in pursuance of the same, the rent was enhanced from time to time. The respondent no.2 stated that the appellants did not pay the revised rent despite several demand and remained a habitual defaulter in payment of rent, service tax and other dues. It was further stated that the appellants failed to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 8 of 24 premises in question despite service of notice dated 14.05.2015 by virtue of which the tenancy was terminated. It has been submitted that the damages have been assessed on the basis of prevalent market rent. It was further stated that they were forced to initiate the proceedings under PP Act as appellants were not paying the rent, service tax and other dues as per negotiation meeting dated 24.02.2003 and the appellants failed to finalize the rent after expiry of lease term i.e. from 16.11.2012. The respondent no.2 stated that the Estate Officer has rightly decided the arrears to be paid by the appellants to respondent no.2 after considering all the factors like pleadings, evidence, documents and arguments of both the parties and there is no illegality or unfairness in the order of Estate Officer. Respondent no.2 stated that they are already suffering heavy losses as the Estate Officer did not consider the claim of revised rent from 17.09.2004 to 16.09.2009 @ Rs.28.50 per sq.ft. amounting Rs.52,796/ and instead has awarded the rent @ Rs.34,342.50/pm from 16.09.2004 to 15.06.2015.
8. Ld. Counsel for appellants submitted that the Estate Officer has passed the impugned order mechanically and awarded the damages despite ample material on record to show that the rent is being regularly paid at an agreed rate of Rs.34,342.50/pm. PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 9 of 24 It was stated that LIC withheld the evidence regarding payment of rent received by them. Ld. Counsel invited the attention of this court towards letter dated 16.06.2015 bearing No.BCII/Janpath PO/1/ 201516 whereby it is revealed that the rent is being paid regularly in respect of the premises in dispute. It has further been submitted that as per communication dated 28.04.2006 bearing No.D22/Janpath PO/2006, it was duly conveyed to Zonal Manager, LIC of India, Northern Zonal Office that the rent @ Rs.34342.50/pm has been approved w.e.f. 16.11.2002 as stipulated in the DOE letter dated 28.03.2005. Attention was also drawn to the letter of DOE dated 11.11.2005 bearing No.18015/1/92Pol.III and 19.12.2007 bearing No.18015/1/2007 Pol.III whereby for the Post Offices, the rent has been fixed @ Rs.92/per sq.mt.per month and Rs.103/per sq.mt. per month for the period 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2005 and 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008 respectively. Ld. Counsel submitted that after expiry of the lease agreement, the rent is being paid as agreed between the parties. It has been submitted that the appellants had been paying the rent more than the rent laid down by DOE and this issue was raised with the LIC several times but they did not pay any heed to this. Ld. Counsel submitted that the water charges have regularly been paid to the LIC. Ld. Counsel submitted that PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 10 of 24 the proceedings were initiated only to harass the appellants as already negotiations were going on regarding renewal of lease. He relied upon NDMC Vs Kalu Ram's case (Supra) to emphasis that the whole proceeding is time barred and the law does not allow the recovery of time barred debt. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Estate Officer also failed to consider the guidelines issued by Ministry of Urban Development. Reliance was also placed on Damayanti Verma (Deceased) Vs LIC and Anr., WP(C) 4342/2007. Ld. Counsel also filed written submissions. The appellants also filed amended/additional written submissions. In the additional written submissions, it was stated that the appellants have already handed over the physical possession of the premises in question to respondent no.2 on 30.08.2019.
9. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the Estate Officer on the petition being filed by the petitioner corporation, issued show cause notice and the proceedings were held before DOE in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the law. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as the delay was condoned vide order dated 10.10.2018 subject to deposit of cost of Rs.1000/ and the appellants failed to deposit the cost. Ld. Counsel PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 11 of 24 submitted that the appeal has been filed only to delay the payment as awarded by the Estate Officer vide a speaking and reasoned order. Ld. Counsel submitted that the rent was being enhanced from time to time in accordance with the agreement between the parties reached on in a meeting held on 24.02.2003 between Zonal Rent Negotiation Committee of LIC and Official from Indian Post & Telegraph Department. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the appellants also did not finalize the rent after expiry of lease term w.e.f. 16.11.2012 and continued to remain a habitual defaulter in payment of rent, service tax and other dues to respondent no.2. Ld. Counsel submitted that the tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 14.05.2015 w.e.f. 16.06.2015 and the appellants were asked to pay the damages @ Rs.200/per sq.ft.per month if they failed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession.
10. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that initially on the agreed terms monthly rent applicable to the appellants as decided by DOE from time to time is as under : From 17.09.1999 to 16.09.2004 @ Rs.24.10 per sq ft amounting to Rs.34342.50 From 17.09.1999 to 16.09.2004 @ Rs.28.50 per sq ft amounting to Rs.40613.00 From 17.09.1999 to 15.11.2012 @ Rs.37.05 per sq ft amounting to Rs.52796.00 PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 12 of 24 It was further argued that the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to recovery of damages u/S 7(2) PP Act and reliance was placed on Govt. of Delhi State & Ors. Vs Life Insurance Corporation Ltd., Writ Petition No.37 of 2009. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants never raised the said issue in the proceedings before the Estate Officer and therefore, they are estopped from raising this issue before this court. Ld. Counsel submitted that the communication dated 19.08.2009, 11.11.2005 and 19.12.2007 relied upon by the appellants are not applicable as the same was applicable to the offices from General Pool Office Accommodation allotted by DOE and not by LIC owned premises. It has been submitted that these documents were also not relied upon by the appellants in the proceedings before the Estate Officer. In respect of the repair/renovation, the respondent no.2 submitted that it was the responsibility of the tenant only. Ld. Counsel also placed reliance upon G. R. Gupta's case (Supra) and L.S. Nayar's case(Supra) and submitted that after issuance of the guidelines dated 30.05.2002 a clarification was issued by the Directorate of Estate, Ministry of Urban Development vide Ref. No.11013 dated 23.07.2003 that the guidelines are meant for genuine, nonaffluent tenants and not for the large business houses and commercial enterprises. Ld. Counsel further PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 13 of 24 submitted that in Syndicate Bank Vs Ramchnadaran Pillai & Ors., 2011 (1) Scale 368, it was interalia held that unauthorized occupant or tenant against whom action is initiated under PP Act cannot resist the proceedings on the ground of noncompliance with the said guidelines. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in Jeevan Das Vs LIC, 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 694, Apex Court inter alia held that an owner is entitled to deal with its property in its own way profitable in its use and occupation and similarly, a public authority is equally entitled to use the public property to the best advantage as a commercial venture. Ld.Counsel for respondent no.2 also filed detailed written submissions.
FINDINGS
11. PP Act has been enacted to introduce a speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants of the public premises. Section 5 of PP Act provides for taking possession of the public premises which are in unauthorized occupation of persons. Section 7 of PP Act provides for the recovery of rent and damages in respect of public premises from the persons who are in unauthorized occupation thereof. Section 15 PP Act bars the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of the eviction of any person who is in PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 14 of 24 unauthorized occupation of any public premises. Section 15 PP Act also bars the jurisdiction for the removal of any building, demolition of any building or the sealing of any erection or work or of any public premises as provided u/S 5(A), 5(B) & 5(C) PP Act. Section 15 PP Act further bars the jurisdiction of any court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the arrears of rent payable under subsection (1) of section 7 or damages payable under subsection (2), or interest payable under subsection (2A), of that section. The jurisdiction has also been barred to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the recovery of costs of removal of any building, expenses of demolition, costs awarded to the Central Government etc. It is pertinent to mention here that the PP Act also confers the power on Estate Officer as appointed u/S 3 PP Act as are vested in the civil court under The Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The scheme of the Act also includes an appeal against the order of the Estate Officer. Section 10 PP Act also grants finality to every order made by an Estate Officer or an Appellate Authority under this Act. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules,1971 ("PP Rules"
in short) also provides a self contained mechanism for holing the proceedings by the Estate Officer and before the Appellate Authority.PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 15 of 24
12. In the present case, it is not disputed that the premises was let out by LIC to appellants and the same falls within the definition of public premises as defined u/S 2 (e) PP Act. LIC served a legal notice dated 14.05.2015 through their counsel which was served upon the appellants. LIC by virtue of this notice has terminated the tenancy w.e.f. 16.06.2015. Petitioner/landlord has proved the notice dated 14.05.2015 as Ex.PW1/4, its postal receipts Ex.PW1/5 and proof of its service Ex.PW1/6 before the Estate Officer. The appellants in cross examination merely gave a suggestion to Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, witness of petitioner corporation that no notice was served. However, suggestion carry no value in the eye of law. Thus, it is proved that legal notice was served upon the appellants vide which the tenancy was terminated w.e.f. 16.06.2015. LIC being the landlord/owner of the premises is well within its rights to retain the appellants as a tenant or to terminate the same in accordance with law. The plea of the appellants that the tenancy should not have been terminated as some negotiation for renewal of lease were going on does not hold any force. Thus, after termination of tenancy and since the appellants failed to hand over the possession w.e.f. 16.06.2015, I consider that the Estate Officer has rightly reached to the conclusion that the appellants PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 16 of 24 were unauthorized occupants of the premises w.e.f. 16.06.2015. However, it has come on record that the appellants have already handed over the vacant possession on 30.08.2019. Thus, the date of unauthorized occupation is only relevant for the purpose of assessment of damages.
13. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per the appellants, the agreed rate of rent is Rs.34,342.50/w.e.f.
16.11.2002. The respondents have claimed the rent @ Rs.34342.50/ from 17.09.1999 to 16.09.2004, @ Rs.40613/ from 17.09.1999 to 16.09.2004 and @ Rs.52796/ from 17.09.1999 to 15.11.2012. However, the Estate Officer has awarded the rent @ Rs.34342.50/ interalia holding that the petitioner corporation did not place any document to prove that the rate of rent was Rs.52796/pm w.e.f.17.09.2009. LIC has not challenged the order of Estate Officer and therefore, the rent of the demised premises is held to be Rs.34342.50/pm w.e.f. 16.11.2002. In view of the finding already arrived at that the appellants have become unauthorized occupants w.e.f. 16.06.2015, they were liable to pay the damages. Section 7(2) PP Act provides that the Estate Officer shall assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of said premises after taking into account the principles of assessment of damages. The PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 17 of 24 principles of assessment of damages have been provided under Rule 8 of PP Rules which provides as under : "8. Assessment of damages. In assessing damages for unauthorised use and occupation of any public premises the estate officer shall taken into consideration the following matters, namely:
(a) the purpose and the period for which the public premises were in unauthorised occupation;
(b) the nature, size and standard of the accommodation available in such premises;
(c) the rent that would have been realised if the premises had been let on rent for the period of unauthorised occupation to a private person;
(d) any damage done to the premises during the period of unauthorised occupation;
(e) any other matter relevant for the purpose of assessing the damages."
14. The Estate Officer in the impugned order has interalia held that the appellants did not place on record any evidence regarding market rate of rent in the area where the suit premises is situated whereas the petitioner corporation has claimed damages @ Rs.200/pm w.e.f. 16.06.2015. The petitioner corporation in support of its claim submitted a comparative lease deed marked Ex.PW1/7 between LIC of India and S. N. Sunderson and Company w.e.f. 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2019 in respect of premises at N42, Ground Floor (718.22 sq.ft. @ Rs.200 sq.ft.) on ground floor and 306.70 sq.ft.(Mezzanine floor PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 18 of 24 @ Rs.100/sq.ft.), Bombay Life Building, NBlock, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The monthly rent for the said area of the premises with S.N.Sunderson and Company is mentioned as Rs.1,37,255/. The Estate Officer held that both the suit premises and the comparative premises for assessing the rate of damages of the premises are of same building. Sh. Sanjeev Sharma in his affidavit has duly proved the comparative lease Ex.PW1/7 and stated that the rate of damages has been fixed keeping in view the location, use and other parameters as well as prevalent market rent of the area where the suit premises is situated. However, there is no cross examination as to the assessment of damages by Sh. Sanjeev Sharma. I consider that the Estate Officer has rightly assessed the damages @ Rs.200/per sq.ft. pm.
15. LIC in its petition u/S 5 and 7 PP Act has claimed as follows (B) initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 against the Respondents for recovery of arrears of rent, service tax, water charges and damages @ Rs.200/ per sq. ft. per month amounting to Rs.2,85,000/ per month w.e.f. 16.06.2015 along with future and pendentalite damages @ Rs.2,85,000/ per month for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit premises till the actual delivery of the suit premises to the Petitioner Corporation as follows:
Difference of Rent w.e.f. 16.12.1999 to 31.05.2004 : Rs.414380.00 (In the legal notice, inadvertantly period mentioned From 16.11.2002 instead of from 16.12.1999) PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 19 of 24 Rent w.e.f.01.06.2004 to 16.09.2004 @ Rs.34342.50 p.m :Rs. 121342.00 Rent w.e.f.17.09.2004 to 16.09.2009 @ Rs.40613.00 p.m :Rs.2436780.00 Rent w.e.f.17.09.2009 to 31.05.2015 @ Rs.52796.00 p.m :Rs.3614766.00 Service Tax on rent w.e.f. 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2015 :Rs. 546415.00 Month to month interest @ 12% on above upto 31.07.2015 :Rs.1441766.00 Rent w.e.f.01.06.2015 to 16.06.2015 @ Rs.52796.00 p.m :Rs. 28158.00 Periodical interest @ 12% on Rs.28158.00 upto 31.07.2015 :Rs. 422.00
- Total : Rs.8604029.00 Less:Amount received unadjusted being insufficient : Rs.5079096.00
- Total Dues : Rs.3524933.00 Water Charges up to 31.07.2015 : Rs.448401.00 Total Dues Outstanding Rs.3973334.00 Sh. Sanjeev Sharma in his affidavit merely stated that the appellants/tenant has not been tendering the service tax and monthly rent to the petitioner corporation even after repeated requests and demands. Besides this at the end of the affidavit, the witness gave the following table :
(b) Orders against the Respondents for recovery of arrears of rent, service tax, electricity and water charges and damages @ Rs.200/ per sq. ft. per month amounting to Rs.2,85,000/ per month plus service tax as applicable w.ef.
16.06.2015 along with future and pendentalite damages @ Rs.2,85,000/ per month plus service tax as applicable for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit premises till the actual delivery of the suit premises to the Petitioner Corporation as follows:
PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 20 of 24Difference of Rent w.e.f. 16.12.1999 to 31/05/2004 :Rs.414380.00 Rent w.e.f.01.06.2004 to 16.09.2004 @ Rs.34342.50 p.m :Rs. 121342.00 Rent w.e.f.17.09.2004 to 16.09.2009 @ Rs.40613.00 p.m :Rs.2436780.00 Rent w.e.f.17.09.2009 to 31.05.2015 @ Rs.52796.00 p.m :Rs.3614766.00 Service Tax on rent w.e.f. 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2015 :Rs. 546415.00 Month to month interest @ 12% on above upto 31.07.2015 :Rs.1441766.00 Rent w.e.f.01.06.2015 to 15.06.2015 @ Rs.52796.00 p.m :Rs. 26398.00 Service Tax on rent w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to 15.06.2015 :Rs. 3960.00 Periodical interest @ 12% on Rs.30358.00 upto 31.07.2015 :Rs. 607.00
- Total : Rs.8606414.00 Less:Amount received unadjusted being insufficient : Rs.5079096.00
- Total Dues : Rs.3527318.00 Interest on Rs.3527318.00 from 01.08.2015 to 31.10.2016 : Rs. 529098.00 Water Charges up to 31.07.2016 : Rs. 527457.00 Total Dues Outstanding :Rs.4583873.00 Damages w.e.f. 16.06.2015 to 31.10.2016 @ Rs.285000/ :Rs.4702500.00 Service Tax on Damages @ 15% :Rs. 705375.00 Month to month int. on Damages + ST @ 12 % on 31.10.16 :Rs. 445740.00 Total :Rs.10437488.00 Less received w.e.f. 06.2015 to 31.10.2016 :Rs. 576746.00 Balance Dues :Rs. 9860742.00 PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 21 of 24
16. In the cross examination, the witness merely stated that the respondent stopped making the payment of rent and dispute regarding nonpayment is going on since 2004 and some payment has been made. The witness denied that post office is making regular payment of rent and the petition filed is false. Further in the cross examination, the witness denied the suggestion that the post office department had paid the whole amount. Now, besides this the LIC did not lead any evidence or place any document before the Estate Officer to show the non payment of rent by the appellants/tenant. LIC had claimed difference of rent from 16.12.1999 to 31.05.2004 and thereafter assessed rent w.e.f. 01.06.2004 to 15.09.2004 @ Rs.34342.50/pm and further till 31.05.2015. The petitioner in order to succeed in its claim was bound to prove on record showing the payment of lesser rent upto 31.05.2004 and nonpayment of rent thereafter. The petitioner corporation is a big corporation and must have been maintaining documents. It cannot be believed that they did not have the document to show the nonpayment of the rent by the appellants/tenant. It was far more important when the appellants/tenant had been taking a plea that the up to date rent is being paid.PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 22 of 24
17. The Estate Officer also in the impugned order merely proceeded to award the difference of rent and rent as claimed without mentioning any discussion or reasons for making an award regarding the difference of rent for the period from 16.12.1999 to 31.05.2004 and thereafter nonpayment from 01.06.2004 to 15.09.2004. The plea can be raised that if it was not the petitioner who had not bring any document, the appellants could have placed on record the documents to show that the payment of rent has been made. This plea cannot be accepted as the burden is on the person who approaches the court for seeking a judgment in its favour. The petitioner corporation, I consider did not place any documents/credible evidence on record to show non payment of rent. Therefore, the order of Estate Officer passing an award in respect of the amount other than the damages before 16.06.2015 cannot be sustained. In this regard the respondent also taken the point of limitation. Therefore, there has to be categorical finding of the Estate Officer regarding the period for which rent was not paid by the appellants.
18. However, the appellants cannot avoid its liability @ Rs.200/per sq.ft.pm from 16.06.2015 till the date of eviction i.e. 30.08.2019. Hence, the impugned order passed in case no.24(A)/2015 is modified to the extent that the appellants are PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 23 of 24 directed to pay the damages @ Rs.200/per sq.ft.pm w.e.f. 16.06.2015 till 30.08.2019 together with interest @ 10% per annum. Since the appellants have already handed over the possession on 30.08.2019, the impugned order in case no.24/2015 has attained its finality. In respect of rent as claimed by petitioner corporation before the Estate Officer, I find that no evidence has been placed on record in this regard. Thus, the matter is remanded back to the Estate Officer for recording the evidence of both the parties on the claim of rent and while doing this, the Estate Officer shall also consider the point of limitation as agitated by the parties before this court. Parties are directed to appear before the Estate Officer on 15.03.2021. With these observations, the appeal is disposed off accordingly.
19. Estate Officer's record be sent back alongwith copy of the judgment.
20. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2021.03.04
SHARMA 15:51:05 +0530
Announced in the (Dinesh Kumar Sharma)
open court on 04.03.2021. Principal District & Sessions Judge/ Appellate Authority New Delhi PPA No.15/2018 Page No. 24 of 24