Jagat Talkies Distributors & Ors v. M.C.D & Anr

REVA KHETRAPAL, J FEBRUARY 11, 2008 Rohtash LPA No.57/2008 page No.7 of 7

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 57/2008 % Date of decision: 11.02.2008 JAGAT TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS & ORS ..... Appellants Through:Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajender Aggarwal, Advocate versus M.C.D & ANR ..... Respondents Through:Mr. Amit K. Paul, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ: (oral) C.M. Nos. 1922-23/2008(exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Applications stands disposed of. LPA 57/2008 & C.M. Nos. 1921/2008(delay) 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd LPA No.57/2008 page No.1 of 7 December, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 2. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 25th October, 2007 which was passed under the provisions of Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 upholding the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer on 16th February, 2005. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 3. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside and quashed as the reasons given by him for dismissing the writ petition are erroneous. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions we have examined the records. 4. The appellant, namely, Jagat Talkies Distributors, was given a lease by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under its resolution dated 15th March, 1967 duly confirmed by the resolution dated 2nd May, 1967. By the aforesaid resolution the appellant was given the lease of the land and also the super-structure. In that regard a deed was also executed on 5th June, 1968. The lease was for a period of 10 years effective from 1st April, 1960 with an option for one renewal. The stand of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is that the aforesaid lease came LPA No.57/2008 page No.2 of 7 to an end by efflux of time after one renewal which was granted to the appellant. The respondent took up the plea that after expiry of the said 20 years period, i.e., 1980 onwards the appellant has become an unauthorized occupant in respect of the land and, therefore, the proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was initiated against the appellant. The said initiation of the proceeding and the show cause notice were challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 3rd December, 2007. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the appellant. Since the said appeal was filed belatedly, an application for condonation of delay was also filed by the appellant. There was a delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal. Reasons therefor have been set out in the application. On going through the same and upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has been able to make out a case of sufficient cause on the reasons given in the application. Therefore, we allow the application seeking for condonation of delay. CM No.1921/2008 seeking for condonation of delay is disposed of. 6. The appellant has filed the present appeal contending, inter alia, that since the appellant was in occupation of the premises by virtue of a lease, therefore, the provisions of the Public Premises LPA No.57/2008 page No.3 of 7 (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 would not be applicable. The said contention was noticed by the Division Bench of this Court. The learned Division Bench of this Court referre