Nirmal Singh Rana v. The Estate Officer & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 07, 2018 'pp'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 7th September, 2018. + W.P.(C) 8872/2018 & CM No.34154/2018 (for stay) NIRMAL SINGH RANA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Versus THE ESTATE OFFICER & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Aakash Varma, Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 6th August, 2018 in PPA No.31/2018 (CNR No.DLND01- 007783-2018) of the Court of the Additional District Judge-02, New Delhi acting as the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act)] of dismissal of appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10th July, 2018 of the respondent no.1 Estate Officer, of eviction under Section 5 of the PP Act, of the petitioner by removal of kiosk installed by the petitioner in a space measuring 1.0 sq. mtr. in the courtyard of the Out Patient Department (OPD) Hall of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (Hospital), New Delhi. 2. This petition came up first before this Court on 24th August, 2018 and thereafter taken up on 5th September, 2018 when the counsel for the respondent drew attention to the monetary demand dated 10th May, 2018 made by the Deputy Director (Administration) of the Hospital on the petitioner for a sum of Rs.3,32,500/- for the period from 1st March, 2005 till 31st May, 2018. It was thus enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner had paid the said amount. The counsel for the petitioner stated that though the petitioner had filed receipts of payment made from time to time but he could not tell how much was the total payment and whether payment for the period after 31st May, 2018 had been made. It was however undertaken that if the amount for which receipts are available with the petitioner is less than the amount of Rs.3,32,500/- and/or all the receipts for payment till September, 2018 are not available, the balance payment will be deposited with the Accounts Department of the Hospital by the next date. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to today. 3. Today, the counsel for the petitioner states that the receipts in possession of the petitioner are for a sum of Rs.3,35,000/- and the remaining amount due of Rs.62,500/- has been deposited by the petitioner yesterday vide Demand Draft undercover of letter dated 6th September, 2018, copy of which is handed over in the Court and is taken on record. 4. The counsel for the respondents, appearing on advance notice, on enquiry states that he is only aware that some payment was made yesterday but is not aware of the particulars thereof. 5. I may in this regard notice that though the counsel for the respondents had also appeared before this Court on advance notice on 5th September, 2018 but had stated that he was not aware of any facts and had been unable to get any instructions from the respondents. It was verbally informed to the counsel for the respondents that the whole purpose of appearing on advance notice is defeated if the respondents do not properly brief the advocate appearing on advance notice and owing to the same, the hearing is adjourned and the petition cannot be disposed of on the first day itself. 6. Today, though Mr. Murari Kumar, LDC of the respondents is present but as aforesaid, without even knowing as to whether the payment of the amount claimed has been received or what are the dues, if any. 7. On enquiry, it is informed that Mr. Anil Bhatt, Office Superintendent of the Hospital, is in charge of litigation. 8. The counsel for the petitioner however states that Dr. Goyala, Additional Medical Superintendent of the Hospital is in charge of litigation. 9. Dr. Goyala, Additional Medical Superintendent of the Hospital is requested to ensure that in future, counsels appearing on advance notice are properly briefed, the file of the Hospital relating to the matter is