Delhi High Court
Jagat Talkies Distributors And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 February, 2005
Author: B Patel
Bench: B Patel, P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
B.C. Patel, C.J.
1. Appellant challenges order dated 18-11-2004 passed by the learned single Judge in WP(C) 1031/1981.
2. It has to be noted from the record that the appellant was inducted as a lessee in respect of the premises in question. Lease was extended from time to time and after last extension, came to an end by efflux of time 31-3-1980.
3. Prior to the period of lease having come to an end, on 26-12-1979 respondent caused to be served upon appellant a notice bringing to the notice of the appellant that the lease was expiring on 31-3-1980 and therefore, appellant was to deliver possession of the leased premises.
4. Neither was the lease extended nor did the appellant hand over possession. Proceedings under Section 4 and Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the PP Act) were initiated by means of two notices issued under Section 4 and 7 of the said Act, notices being dated 14-4-1981.
5. Petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the vires of Section 4 and Section 7 of the PP Act.
6. The matter was referred to the Full Bench. At the hearing before the Full Bench it transpired that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashoka Marketing Limited and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. , vires of the provisions challenged were upheld and accordingly vide order dated 24.9.2004, Full Bench held that prayer A in the writ petition is not required to be granted by this court. For other prayers, matter was directed to be placed before the learned single Judge as per rooter.
7. In appeal, it is urged that the respondent/Corporation is trying to make illegal gains by evicting the appellant and thereafter intends to let out the property at a higher rent, an action which would be in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court Jamshed Hormusji Wadia vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and Anr.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the statement recorded in paragraph 21 of the order sought to be impugned wherein the learned single Judge has taken on record the categorical statement made at the Bar by counsel for the MCD that MCD does not propose to re-let the premises and intends to utilise the site for purposes of road widening and multi level parking or similar other use for public purpose.
9. It is urged that there were no pleadings to that effect by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
10. We may note that the writ petition was filed in the year 1981 and pleadings were completed some times thereafter by the MCD. City of Delhi has grown over the years. Needs and requirement of planning have undergone a change. A statement made by a counsel for a local authority at the Bar is good enough to bind the local authority.
11. Second contention urged was that notice under Section 4 of the PP Act does not state the grounds on which it is based.
12. Notice dated 14.4.1981 records that the appellant is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises. As noted above, on 26-12-1979 appellant was duly intimated that the lease would come to an end on 31-3-1980.
13. In our opinion there is no requirement of law for the MCD to have set out in extensor, the reasons as to why the appellant was an unauthorised occupant.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a decision of learned single Judge of this court Shri. Bhagat Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority as also a decision of the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court reported as 1980 JandK 16 Dr. Yash Paul Gupta vs. Dr. S.S. Anand and Ors.
15.Decision of the learned single Judge of this court is not attracted on the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that in the instant case, right of the appellant expired by efflux of time and the notice under Section 4 was proceeded by a notice dated 26-12-1979. Notice dated 26-12-1979 was not determining the tenancy of the appellant but was merely intimating the fact of tenancy expiring by efflux of time.
16. For the same reason, decision of the Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir would not be attracted.
17. We find no merit in the appeal.
18. Before parting, we may put on record that the appellant has enjoyed the benefit of stay obtained by it from this court for over 24 years and has continued to occupy the site which as per the decision of the learned single Judge was required by the MCD for an urgent public purpose. Since proceedings before the Estate Officer were at the stage of notice, it is hoped and expected that the Estate Officer would consider expeditious disposal of the proceedings emanating from notices under Sections 4 and 7 of the PP Act.
19. Dismissed.
