Ritu Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ...
1998 Latest Caselaw 951 Del

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Prasad, J.

1. In the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated the 17th May, 1996 (Annexure-B), passed by the Estate Officer (Slum) Vs. Slum & J.J. Wing, Municipal Corporation of Delhi in Case No.1/EO (S)/91 and the subsequent order dated the 3rd June, 1997 (Annexure-C), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in appeal bearing No. P.P.A. 175/96 - entitled Smt. Ritu Singh Vs. M.C.D. & Anr.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially inducted as a tenant in premises bearing No. F-15-X, Jahangir Puri, Delhi by one Shri Manbir Singh, an employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Slum Wing at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. Said Shri Manbir Singh, as per the case of the petitioner, gave an impression and misrepresented to the petitioner that he was the owner in possession of the property thereby inducing the petitioner to enter into an agreement to sell the above mentioned property to the petitioner for Rs. 75,000/-. It is stated that on the above representation of said Shri Manbir Singh the petitioner paid a sum of approximately Rs. 75,000/- to said Shri Manbir Singh on different dates for the purchase of the property in question. It is further stated that the petitioner received a notice from the Estate Officer, M.C.D., who passed the impugned order dated the 17th May, 1996 for the vacation of the premises in question within 15 days from the date of the publication of the order. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the Estate Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal (P.P.A. No.175/96) before the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated the 3rd June, 1997, also being impugned in the present proceedings, has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner. In the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, it has been prayed that the order dated the 17th May, 1996, passed by the Estate Officer and the subsequent order dated the 3rd June, 1997 passed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge be set aside. In the alternative, it has been prayed that the appeal be remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge with the directions to decide the same afresh on the grounds taken in the writ petition. The petitioner has also claimed the cost of the proceedings.

3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents who have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit dated the 3rd December, 1997 of Shri J.P. Govil, Director (Administration) Slum & J.J. Wing, M.C.D., filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it is stated that the premise in question (F-15-X, Jahangir Puri) which is purely staff quarter, was allotted to said Shri Manbir Singh in his capacity as an employee of the slum & J.J. Department and that the said allotment, made in favour of said Shri Manbir Singh was cancelled on 10th October, 1995 on account of the breach of the terms & conditions of the allotment. It is further stated that said Shri Manbir Singh has been placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him. It is further stated that the petitioner, being an unauthorised occupant of the premises in question was proceeded against, under the provisions of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction against which the petitioner filed an appeal which has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated the 3rd June, 1997. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondent and in case if she feels that she has been cheated by said Shri Manbir Singh the petitioner may take action against said Shri Manbir Singh in accordance with law. It is contended that in view of the above facts the present writ petitioner, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. With a view to satisfy myself a direction was issued to the respondents for producing the original records relating to this case which have been filed by the respondents and have also been perused by this Court. On a perusal of the documents/material on record and the records made available by the respondents, it is apparent that the premises in question is a staff quarter belonging to the Slum & J.J. Department and the same was allotted to said Shri Manbir Singh, an employee of the Slum & J.J. Department vide order dated the 28th January, 1988. The English Translation of the above said document, on record, at pages 37-38 of the paper-book reads as under:-

"Delhi Development Authority

Office of the Director (Slum)

'C' Block Barrack No. I

Vikas Kuteer,

New Delhi-110002.

No.D/683/DD (A) /88 Dated; L 28.6.88

Sub: Allotment of Housing by Slum Deptt.

Director (Slum) has allotted Flat No. F-15-X in Jahangir Puri to Shri Manbir Singh, Peon out of departmental housing accommodation of Slum Deptt. DDA on the following Terms & Conditions.

Conditions

1. The allottee shall take over possession of above quarter/house within 7 days from the date of issue of this letter from E.E.C.D. (I).

2. If the allottee failed to take over possession of quarter by the stipulated period, then the allotment made in his name shall be cancelled. He shall be disentitled for departmental accommodation for one year and the other eligible employee shall be given allotment of said quarter.

3. The Director (Slum) shall be the final authority to resolve any dispute in connection with allotment. In case it is found that allotment has been obtained be misrepresentation of concealment of true facts, then the allotment shall be cancelled and disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated against him.

4. The licence fee shall be applicable from the date of taking over possession or 15-days from the date of issue of this letter whichever is earlier. The licence fee shall be charged from the allottee under F.R. 45.

5. The allottee after taking over the possession of quarter shall inform the Jt. Director (slum).

6. The allottee shall not use any portion of quarter allotted to him for any purpose other than residence.

7. The allottee shall not sub let any portion of quarter.

8. The allottee shall not make any addition and alternation without any permission the structure of quarter.

In case the allottee failed to abide by the above mentioned conditions, disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated against him in addition to it, the allotment shall be cancelled forthwith. The action shall be taken as per Rules in this regard.

Sd/-

Dy. Director

(Commercial Allotment & Housing)

Sh. Manbir Singh,

F-15-X."

5. On a plain reading of the above said document, it is apparent that the allottee said Shri Manbir Singh was in no way competent or authorised to sub let any portion of the premises in question. It is also stated in the above said allotment order that in case the allottee fails to abide by the above mentioned conditional, disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated against him in addition to the allotment being cancelled forthwith.

6. The above allotment of the staff quarter (premises in question), made in favour of said Shri Manbir Singh, had been cancelled by the respondent vide order dated the 10th October, 1995 (Annexure R-2 at page 39 of the paper-book) and a direction was issued to him to hand over physical possession of the quarter in question to the concerned engineer within week from the date of the receipt of the communication. The impugned order dated the 17th May, 1996 has also been passed by the Estate Officer on the ground that the premises in question is a staff quarter which was allotted to said Shri Manbir Singh in his capacity as an employee of the slum & J.J. Department which allotment has been cancelled by the competent authority on 10th October, 1995 due to violation of the terms & conditions of the allotment. It has also been held by the Estate Officer that said Shri Manbir Singh or any other person who may be in occupations of the premises in question has no authority to retain the flat in question after the cancellation of the allotment of the premises in question in favour of said Shri Manbir Singh by the competent authority vide order dated the 10th October, 1995. The appeal, filed by the petitioner, has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the premises in question, which is a staff quarter was allotted to Shri Manbir Singh by virtue of his employment with the Department and that said Shri Manbir Singh was not competent to part with the possession of the said premises in favour of the petitioner. It has been held by the leaned Additional District Judge that the petitioner cannot derive any right, title or interest in the premises in question on the ground that she had purchased the property from said Shri Manbir Singh. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the finding of the Estate Officer and the finding of the learned Additional District Judge, as recorded by them in the orders, being impugned in the present proceedings because said Shri Manbir Singh, in whose favour the premises in question (staff quarter) was allotted by the Slum & J.J. Department in his capacity as an employee of the Department was in no way competent either to sub let the premises or to transfer the title in respect of the same in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner feels that she has been cheated by said Shri Manbir Singh, the petitioner may take such action against said Shri Manbir as may be available to her in accordance with law. However, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present proceedings.

7. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, being devoid of substance merits dismissal, the same is dismissed with costs. Costs quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and awarded to the State Legal Services Authority, Delhi.

Writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.