Suhael Saad Ali Khan vs Administrator General And ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 769 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. The appellant herein clams to be the tenant in respect of the first floor of the property No. 110, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Incidentally, Shri Kazim Ali Khan, father of the appellant, was functioning as the Deputy Administrator General and Official Trustee on his appointment as such by the Administrator in July, 1991.

2. The allegation made was that Shri Kazim Ali Khan, while working as Deputy Administrator General and Official Trustee allowed his son to enter into a transaction of tenancy in respect of the aforesaid property and that too when he was discharging his duties as an Official Trustee in respect of the said property. An order was passed in respect of the said property on 3rd October, 1978 in IA No. 2555/1978 whereby this Court issued a direction that status quo with regard to the suit property shall be maintained and also restrained the Administrator General from letting out the same without permission of the Court. Since the same was let out to the son of the Deputy Administrator General and Official Trustee, the said transaction was opposed on the ground of unauthorised and illegal possession of the property. In the testamentary cased filed, the learned Single Judge passed the order dated 25th November, 2004 that possession of the entire property shall be obtained including all the rooms in the disputed property and if necessary by breaking open any locks for the said purpose of securing possession.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant herein preferred the present appeal. While issuing notice on the appeal, an interim injunction was granted staying the operation of the impugned order.

4. It was contended before us by the counsel appearing for the appellant that since he is in authorised possession of the property being a tenant and continues to pay rent, no such order could have been passed by the learned Single Judge directing for his eviction and securing possession of the property and all the rooms.

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made before us. The probate case relating to estate of Smt. Dropadi Devi is pending before the learned Single Judge. The said probate case was filed in 1973 and vide order dated 03.10.1978 passed in IA No. 2555/1978, it was directed that status quo in respect of the property bearing No. 110, Daryaganj, New Delhi should be maintained and the Administrator General was restrained from letting out the property without permission from the Court.

6. In spite of the restraining order, on 01.8.1989 the appellant claims that portion of the property consisting of three bedrooms of size of 15 ft. x 15.6 ft., 12.6 ft. x 15.6 ft. and 14.9 ft x 12.6 ft. along with kitchen, store, bathroom and WC and covered verandah of 20 ft. x 7 ft. on the first floor and one bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, store room and WC along with huge open terrace on the second floor was rented out to the appellant for merely Rs. 200/- per month. The site plan has been filed along with the appeal. Anyone aware of the rents prevailing in Daryaganj, Delhi in 1989 can know and understand that the market rent of any such premises in 1989 would have been substantially more.

7. It has not been denied by the appellant that he is the son of Mr. Kazim Ali Khan who was working as Deputy Administrator General and Deputy Official Trustee. The Administrator General in his reply dated 23.3.1998 has pointed out that after enquiry it was found that Mr. Kazim Ali Khan was guilty of misconduct by dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating and converting the aforesaid property for his personal use and gain in guise of a sham transaction creating tenancy rights in favor of his son. In the reply it is also mentioned that a case under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. The averment that Mr. Kazim Ali Khan was working as Deputy Administrator General and Deputy Official Trustee at the relevant time has not been denied. However, it has been stated that Mr. Kazim Ali Khan was not guilty of mis-conduct or violating Administrative General Act, 1963 and the Official Trustee Act, 1930.

8. In view of the above facts, we feel that the learned Single Judge was justified in passing orders dated 19.9.1984 and 25.11.2004.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Interim order dated 8th December, 2004 stands vacated.