Sh.Sanjeev Kumar & Anr vs New Delhi Municipal Committee And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3539 Del

*                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        Writ Petition No.11354/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 03.09.2009

Sh.Sanjeev Kumar & Anr                            .... Petitioners
                   Through Mr.Chirag Jamwal, Advocate

                                 Versus

New Delhi Municipal Committee and Anr.             .... Respondents
                    Through Mr.Manoj      Kr.Singh  and     Nilava
                             Banerjee, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be              YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                 NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in             NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 21st August,

2009 passed by Sh.S.P.Garg, Additional District Judge dismissing the

appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 12th November, 2007

passed by the Estate Officer directing the petitioners to vacate the

premises and also to pay the damages.

The petitioners had contended that a license was given to

Smt.Chandrawati for Pan Thara No.23, South Block, Dalhousie Road,

New Delhi on a monthly license fee of Rs.300/-. The license was valid

up to 4th February, 1989. The petitioner No.1 had entered into a

partnership with petitioner No.2, however, after the expiry of the license

on 4th February, 1989, which was not renewed by the petitioner No.2,

had handed over part of the possession to petitioner no.1 without

obtaining any permission from respondent/NDMC.

The allegations were also made against the petitioners that they

also carried out extensive addition and alternation and started trade of

selling items like sweets, pastries, cold drinks, samosa etc by using LPG

gas and they also allegedly changed the trade of business. The

respondent also received reference from Ministry of Defence that the

premises which was on license with petitioner No.2 was a security

threat for the Prime Minister and, therefore, possession of the licensed

premises whose license had expired on 4th February, 1989 was taken.

The petitioners had filed the civil suits, however, the relief

claimed by them for restoration of the possession and injunction was

denied by the Civil Court and the appeals filed to the High Court and

the Supreme Court were dismissed. The proceedings under the Public

Premises Act were also initiated against the petitioners. In the eviction

proceedings the petitioners were proceeded ex-parte after considerable

time, as the petitioners took considerable time to file the reply/response

and on subsequent dates neither the petitioners nor their lawyers

appeared before the Estate Officer.

An order under Section 4 was passed upholding the eviction order

passed against the petitioner and an order for recovery of outstanding

amount of Rs.2,27,246/- was also passed by order dated 12th

November, 2007.

In an appeal filed before the District judge, these facts were

noticed and the plea of the petitioner that the order of vacation could

not be passed against him was rejected and the ex-parte order passed

against him on account of petitioners and their lawyers not appearing

before the estate officer was also not faulted. The Appellate Court,

however, has set aside the order dated 12th November, 2007, of the

Estate Officer ordering appellants to pay the damages to the tune of

Rs.2,27,246/- on the ground that the Estate Officer ought to have

assessed the damages and should not have just calculate the damages

and, therefore, the order under Section 7 was set aside.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order

of eviction passed against the petitioners under Section 4 which has

been upheld by the first Appellate Court.

The main ground which is contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioners is that they were proceeded ex-parte and the application

for setting aside the ex-parte order has not been decided in accordance

with law. The fact that the petitioners and their lawyers did not appear

before the Estate Officer on various dates has not been denied. The

averments made by the petitioners in their application for setting aside

the ex-parte order do not disclose sufficient reason for non appearance

of petitioners and their counsel on various dates as contemplated under

law for setting aside the ex-parte order. The Appellate Court has

considered the same and in the circumstances the order of the

Appellate Court dated 21st August, 2009 sustaining the order of eviction

passed against the petitioners cannot be faulted. There is no denial of

principles of natural justice and in the circumstances petitioners are

not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed in the writ petition.

In the totality of facts and circumstances, no legal infirmities has

been made out nor any irregularity in the order of the learned

Additional District Judge has been made out or shown.The writ petition

is, therefore, without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ

petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are however, left to bear their

own costs.

September 03, 2009                                  ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'