UOI & Anr v. Mohinder Pratap Soni & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MAY 4, 2016 "gsr"..

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 4th May, 2016 + CM(M) No.635/2008 UOI & ANR. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC Versus MOHINDER PRATAP SONI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shekhar, Adv. for LR of R-1 along with Rajender Pratap Soni, LR of R-1. AND + CM(M) No. 636/2008 UOI & NAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC Versus RANA PRATAP SONI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M.M. Kumar, Adv. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. These petitions, both under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugn the common order dated 14th February, 2007 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi exercising jurisdiction as an Appellate Authority under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) allowing PPA No.188/2005 and PPA No.189/2005, filed by the respondent in CM(M) No.635/2008 and CM (M) No.636/2008 respectively, thereby setting aside the order dated 3rd October, 2005 of the Estate Officer of the petitioner Land & Development Officer (L&DO) of eviction of the respondent in both the petitions from the premises measuring 3255 sq. ft. situated at Plot No.1, Block No.124, known as 12 Partap Singh Building, Janpath Lane, Janpath, New Delhi. 2. Notice of both the petitions was issued and vide orders dated 8th April, 2009, the petitions admitted for hearing. The petitions are being listed together since entail the same facts and emanate from the common order of the Estate Officer and of the ADJ. The respondent in both petitions died during the pendency of the petitions and their legal heirs were substituted. On 28th August, 2015, when the petitions came up before this Court, the counsels stated that they were not ready to address arguments and as such the petitions were adjourned to 29th October, 2015 and the petitioner L&DO was directed to produce the record of the Estate Officer before this Court. On 29th October, 2015 the counsel for the petitioner L&DO was heard; however the counsels for both the respondents again expressed inability to argue and sought adjournment. Finding the conduct of the respondents to be dilatory and vexatious orders were reserved in the petitions and liberty given to the counsels for the respondents to file written arguments. The petitioner having not produced the record of the Estate Officer, fresh directions for production thereof were issued. The counsels for respondents in both the petitions have filed their written arguments. The counsel for the petitioner L&DO has also produced the record of the Estate Officer. I have perused the records and considered the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner L&DO and the written arguments of the counsels for the respondent in both the petitions. 3. As per the order dated 3rd October, 2005 of the Estate Officer, (i) Plot No.1, Block No.124 known as 12 Janpath Lane, New Delhi was leased out to Sh. Rana Partap and Sh. Mohinder Partap i.e. the respondent in each of the petitions; (ii) the premises were inspected on 12th May, 1971 and 30th July, 1971 when breach of the terms and conditions of the perpetual lease of the land in the form of misuse of whole of the ground floor as a lodging place for hippies on commercial basis and unauthorized construction of a pucca kitchen measuring about 9 ft.-¾" x 10 ft.-½" and unauthorized pucca bathroom constructed in the back open courtyard measuring 5ft. x 6ft.-3" were found; (iii) the breaches aforesaid were in violation of Clauses (v) and (vi) of the lease deed; (iv) a breach notice was issued on 7th July, 1972; (v) the respondent in each of the petitions requested for charges recoverable in respect of the breaches; (vi) the charges were conveyed to the respondent in each of the petitions on 5th March, 1973; (vii) the respondent in each of the petitions requested to allow to make payment in installments; (viii) the respondent in each of the petitions failed to get the breaches removed / regularized; (