Hans Raj Malik vs Union Of India And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 25 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

(1) By these three writ petitions, which raise common questions, the petitioners-allotters of corner tenements, of 18C type double. storey quarters of the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, Lajpat Nagar seek, inter alia, direction to the Union of India and the Land and Development Officer for delivery of possession to them of common toilet for their exclusive use and for execution of supplementary lease deeds in respect of the same in their favor.

(2) The brief facts leading to these writ petitions are as under:

(3) 3. The Rehabilitation Department of Government of India constructed 18C type double storey quarters at Lajpat Nagar and other places for rehabilitation of displaced persons. 24 blocks were built with each block having 64 quarters, 32 on the ground floor and equal number on the first floor. The flat holders were provided common toilets and bath rooms. It is alleged by the respondents that the various flat owners unauthorisedly occupied certain common areas. It was also felt by the authorities that common lavatories and bath rooms were not being properly maintained by the tenement holders which was resulting in unhygienic conditions. In view of this thinking a plan was prepared by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for the use of rear set backs by non-corner tenement holders for the purpose of constructing their own W.Cs and bath rooms. Rear set backs were undoubtedly common areas belonging to tenement holders, which were occupied by some of the tenement holders. Even some of the common lavatories and bath rooms were handed over to the owners of corner tenement holders as well who converted some of these into shops. Various suits were filed by the corner flat owners and other tenement holders for securing the common lavatories and bath rooms for their exclusive use and for execution of supplementary lease deeds in their favor by the Government. It is not denied on both sides that various interim orders were passed in the suits. It may be pointed out that the C type Double Storey Non-corner Quarters Residents Welfare Association (Regd.),Nirmal Puri (Double Storey) Corner Quarters Residents Welfare Association (Retd.) and one Smt.Shanti Devi Bhatia filed Writ Petitions being Writ petition Nos-760/91, 1703/91 and 1824/94) in this court. These writ petitions came before a Division Bench on May 29,1992 and the same were disposed of by a common order. In these writ petitions, it was found, inter alia, that the dispute was between the non-corner flat holders and some of the corner flat holders. It was also found that the questions which were raised in the writ petitions were squarely covered in the suits pending between the parties before the subordinate courts. In view of the parallel pending suits and having regard to the fact that in the writ petitions disputed question of the fact were raised the Division Bench relegated the parties to the civil suits and disposed of the writ petitions with the direction that the non-corner tenement holders will be imploded .as parties in the suits. Before the Division Bench the counsel for the A Central Government gave an undertaking that till the matter was finally decided by the trial court or till further orders in the civil suits no supplementary lease deeds would be executed except in cases where all concerned unit holders consent to the same.

(4) The present petitioners are the allottees of the following tenements: 1.Corner tenement bearing No.B-55,01d double storey Lajpat NagarlV,New Delhi (Writ Petition No.3901 of 1992) 2. Corner tenements bearing l/55,Double storey, Lajpat Nagar Iv, Delhi (Writ Petition No. 74 of 1993. 3. Corner tenements bearing No.O-IV. Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (Writ Petition No.388 of 1993).

(5) In these writ petitions similar controversy has been raised as was raised in the previous writ petitions and which was the subject matter of the order of the Division Bench dated May 29,1992. Here also, the dispute is between the corner flat holders and non- corner flat holders. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they have not filed any civil suits. Since the controversy has been raised by several other corner flat holders in civil suits and also having regard to the nature of the controversy, the petitioners cannot get any direction to the respondents for delivery of exclusive possession of common toilets or for execution of supplementary lease deeds in respect of them in their favor in these writ petitions. The petitioners are, however, at liberty to file civil suits for determination of their rights vis- a-vis non-corner flat holders and they can also challenge/oppose the policy of the Government in regard to the allotment of common areas and lavatory block. It will also be open to them to bring to the notice of the civil court the orders passed by this court from time to time in similar matters. The Mcd and Land & Development office will take a decision in regard to the controversy raised by the parties within two months. In case it is found that any of the tenement holders had made unauthorised construction the Mcd will take steps to demolish the same in accordance with law.

(6) With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.

(7) This order will be kept in the file of Civil Writ Petition No.388 of 1993 and since it also governs the other two writ petitions (CWP Nos.3901 of 1992 and 74 of 1993 ), copies thereof will be placed in those files as well.