Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) Letter dated 19.07.1999 from DTTDC asking for rentals of Rs. 2.30 lakhs;

(iii) Copy of payment receipt dated 23.07.1999;

(iv) Letter dated 15.12.1999 of BPCL to DTTDC informing it about advance stage of engineering activities.

Copies of the said documents are collectively annexed herewith as Annexure R-1/2 (Colly).

3. BPCL submits that the structure that was set up by it and existed at the site at the time of execution of the Lease Deed has not been altered. Apart from the plant and machinery including under-ground oil Storage Tanks, dispensing pumps, there is a Pota cabin, which is being used as an office and a portable canopy fastened on nuts and bolts. The black and white copies photographs and photocopy of site plan allegedly annexed with the agreement are not at all legible. BPCL reserves the right to respond to the said documents as and when the legible copies are supplied to it. It is submitted that no details of the alleged structural changes made by the BPCL have been given and the said allegation being vague cannot be effectively responded to, by the BPCL.

THE CASE OF RESPONDENT NO.1/DTTDC

7. The respondent no.1/DTTDC admitted that the Lease Agreement dated 27.01.2000 was created in favour of the appellant BPCL to establish, set up and run a petrol pump at allotted land measuring 12355.60 sq. ft. or 992.80 sq. mts for a period of 30 years and BPCL committed violation of clause (6) of the agreement and sub- leased/sub-let the premises to M/s. Vijay Agro without its written consent as also committed breach of clause (7) of the Lease Agreement by carrying out structural changes in the premises without its permission. The respondent no.1. /DTTDC has also come up with a case that the appellant/BPCL was occupying more area than what was allotted to then under the agreement, and it was alleged that the BPCL allowed construction and running of shops for selling tea/coffee and snacks without intimation to it or without its written consent, and therefore, it was stated that DTTDC was within its right to invoke clause (11) of the agreement and issued a notice dated 10.04.2018 bearing No. PA/DTTDC/AHG/2017-18/2098/18 R&I to the respondent no.1 thereby terminating the agreement dated 27.01.2000, and further requiring appellant/ BPCL to handover the peaceful physical possession of the subject property within 30 days thereof.

c. That the impugned order is against the doctrine of nemo judex in causa sua as the Senior Chief Manager (Legal) was handing the legal affairs of respondent no. 1 DTTDC and he acted as a Estate Officer in violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

d. That the order dated 10.04.18 passed by the Ld. Estate Officer not calling the witnesses of the petitioner DTTDC first in the witness box was erroneous, and rather prejudicial to its interest as no material evidence was placed on the record with regard to alleged additions, alterations or structural changes or for occupying more area than allotted; and e. That the Ld. Estate Officer failed to appreciate that the tea/coffee and snacks stalls were located outside the subject property and could not have been shown as a part and parcel of the subject property;

PART II OF THE NOTICE U/S 4 OF THE PP ACT

31. In so far as the second part of the notice, Section 4 of the PP Act dated 05.10.2018 is concerned, at the outset, I find that it was absolutely vague and ambiguous as it did not spell out or supply detail as to the nature of the structural changes, addition or alterations in the existing structure without written consent of the DTTDC; or for that matter not even specific about the extent of encroachment if any committed by the appellant BPCL. No site plan was attached with the notice dated 15.10.2018 and it would bear repetition that it did not specify any area allegedly encroached upon and / or addition or super structure made on the subject property. It appears that it was only during the proceedings before the respondent No.2 that the two witnesses for the appellant BPCL were confronted about certain super structure i.e. a porta cabin for pollution check and a shop dealing with Tyre puncture & repairs besides the existence of Tea / Coffee and snack shops. No such facts were mentioned in the impugned notice. In the case of Bhagat Singh vs DDA, AIR 1988 Delhi 174, it was observed that it is mandatory requirement of the law that a proper and valid notice under Section 4 of the Act must be served that must contain the description of the property. Such a notice cannot be waived and any apparent illegality in a notice issued under Section 4 of the Act can be highlighted by the aggrieved party at any stage of the proceedings. FINAL ORDER: