Delhi Cantonment Board vs Shri J.S. Bedi
2005 Latest Caselaw 115 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred against the order made by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 385/1999 on 26.09.2003. We are at a loss to understand why the public officers are approaching the Court against the judgment where there is no error at all.

It was contended before us that the original petitioner was a trespasser, therefore, he had no right. Nonetheless, there is nothing to indicate that any action has been taken against the officers of the Cantonment Board with regard to the alleged trespass. Whatever it may be, there is a lease deed between the parties dated 20th June, 1989 and therefore parties are required to act according to that agreement. The agreement clearly indicates that in the event of the Lesser developing the proposed commercial complex, "the lessee will be given a suitable shop space in new complex on the terms and conditions to be fixed by the Board/Lesser".

2. Learned counsel states that this agreement is also not executed in accordance with law inasmuch as the same was not executed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Cantonment Act. When a question was put to him whether any action was taken against the officer who executed the document, the answer was that no action is taken against the officer as to the knowledge of the counsel. These are the matters of pleadings. Evidence is required to be placed before the Court. When their own officers are acting illegally or contrary to law, no action is taken and the persons who are acting in pursuance to the terms are sought to be penalized by denying rights which accrued to them under the agreement. The agreement is dated 20th June, 1989 and person is enjoying the fruits of the said agreement. No action whatsoever was taken and before this Court the argument that it is not in consonance with the law, cannot be accepted.

3. We find no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. It was submitted that it was open to the appellant to convert the lease into license and that no officer of the Board is required to execute the agreement of lease.

5. We find no substance in this submission and only the terms and conditions were to be fixed keeping in view the fact that a new building was to be erected which would require spending of huge amount and accordingly it was thought fit to add this clause in the agreement. This clause is a part of the lease documents and it does not mention anything for conversion from lease to license.

6. The appeal and the application are dismissed.