VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2012 › High Court of Delhi

Prem Kumar Decd Thr Lrs v. UOI & Anr

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
6 July 2012
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
LPA 475/2012

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 6th, 2012 M

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 6th July, 2012 + LPA.No.475/2012 SHRI PREM KUMAR & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha and Ms. Shweta Sharma, Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC for UOI. AND + LPA.No. 476/2012 SHRI NARESH KUMAR & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha and Ms. Shweta Sharma , Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC for UOI. AND + LPA No. 477/2012 SHRI BALWANT RAI & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha and Ms. Shweta Sharma, Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC for UOI. AND + LPA.No. 478/2012 SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha and Ms. Shweta Sharma, Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC for UOI. AND + LPA.No. 480/2012 SHRI S.P. GOEL (DECEASED) THR. HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVES & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha and Ms. Shweta Sharma, Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC for UOI. AND + LPA.No. 481/2012 SHRI YOGINDER LAL SOOD ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha and Ms. Shweta Sharma, Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. All these intra court appeals are preferred impugning the common judgment dated 10th April, 2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) Nos. 6850/2007, 6849/2007, 6852/2007, 6851/2007, 6848/2007 & 6853/2007 respectively preferred by the appellants herein. The said writ petitions were preferred impugning the orders dated 15.09.2007 of the District Judge exercising powers as Appellate Authority under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellants against the orders of the Estate Officer of eviction against each of the appellants from the shops/quarters in respective occupation of the appellants President's Estate Market, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The learned Single Judge has observed/found - i. that it is beyond the realm of controversy that after the year 1993 there was no subsisting right of the appellants to remain in possession of their respective shops/quarters, as the term of the agreement under which each of them was permitted to occupy the subject premises had then came to an end by efflux of time; ii. that in the year 2003 "notice to evict" was served upon each of the appellants as they were in arrears of licence fee and the ground of bona fide necessity was also invoked; iii. that in the replies to the said notices, the factum of being in arrears of licence fee was contested but the plea of bona fide requirement was not disputed; rather the notice to evict was contested by the appellants on the plea that though revised licence fee was payable from January, 2000, the same was being illegally demanded from the year 1992; iv. that the Estate Officer had passed the orders of eviction on the ground that each of the appellants were unauthorized occupants after the termination of their respective agreements; v. that the plea of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that- a. that the plea of bona fide requirement of the subject premises and of there being high security risk due to commercial use of the subject premises in the Rashtrapati Bhavan, which was accepted by the Estate officer as well as by the Appellate Authority, did not stand established; and, b. the ground of the appellants being in arrears of licence fee did not survive due to a consensus being arrived at, of the revised licence fee being payable only from January 2000; it was thus argued that the eviction orders were bad, c. that the eviction orders were also in contravention of the Guidelines to Preve

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.