Matwal Chand Ainshi Lal vs N.C.T. Of Delhi & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 950 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 5550/2008      Date of decision: 18th February, 2010.
      MATWAL CHAND AINSHI LAL                  ..... Petitioner
                   Through    Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate.
                   versus
      N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS            ..... Respondent
                   Through    Mr. Amiet Andlay, Advocate for the
                              respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
                          ORDER

%

1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Matwal Chand Ainshi

Lal, a partnership firm through its attorney Mr. Subhash Chand Mangla.

2. M/s. Matwal Chand Ainshi Lal was allotted lease hold rights in

property No. M-4, Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate, Delhi measuring 1120

square yards vide leased deed dated 13th January, 1970. The lease deed

was signed on behalf of the partnership firm by Mr. Matwal Chand and

Mr. Ainshi Lal, both sons of Mr. Bodhraj. The property could only be

used as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed.

3. There is an allegation against the petitioner that it had set up an

unapproved and non-permissible unit of stainless steel re-rolling by

pickling, which caused pollution. Notices were issued stating that in

case misuse of the property continued, the lease would be determined.

Opportunity of personal hearing was also given to the petitioner. After

W.P.(C) No.5550/2008 Page 1 considering the facts, finally the lease was determined by the lessor i.e.

Lt. Governor and the determining was conveyed to the petitioner by

the Deputy Secretary (Industries) vide order dated 16th April, 1991. The

partnership firm filed an appeal before the Lieutenant Governor and

opportunity of hearing was also given to the petitioner- partnership

firm. The Lieutenant Governor dismissed the appeal on 23rd October,

1998 and the order dismissing the appeal was communicated to the

partnership firm on 15th January, 1999. It was observed by the

Lieutenant Governor that the partnership firm was engaged in the

business of manufacturing of unauthorized SS re Rolling of flats as per

the survey conducted by the department.

4. The respondents thereafter initiated proceedings under the

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and eviction order dated 14th July,

2003 was passed by the Estate Officer.

5. Appeal against the eviction order under Section 9 of the Act was

filed before the Additional District Judge. This appeal has been

dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 8 th

December, 2007. The learned Additional District Judge has examined

the entire facts leading to the determination of the lease, but has not

W.P.(C) No.5550/2008 Page 2 given any finding. The appeal has been dismissed on the short ground

that appeal was filed by the partnership firm through their

representative Mr. Subhash Chand Mangla, who has signed the appeal

but has not stated in what capacity he has signed the appeal. Learned

Additional District Judge has further noticed that the appeal was

supported by affidavit of Mr. Subhash Chand Mangla in which he had

stated that he was attorney of Mr. Matwal Chand. Learned Additional

District Judge has observed that the appeal is not in proper form. It was

also noticed that the power of attorney was not placed on record. The

petitioner thereafter had filed a review application, but the said

application has been dismissed. The petitioner along with the appeal

has filed copy of the Special Power of Attorney executed by Mr. Matwal

Chand in favour of the petitioner. This power of attorney is dated 29 th

November, 1996. The petitioner also filed the affidavit of Mr. Subhash

Chand Mangla stating that he is attorney of M/s Matwal Chand Ainshi

Lal and is entitled to file appeal/writ etc.

6. The petitioner no doubt is guilty of lapses and negligence as the

copy of power of attorney should have been filed on record before the

appellate authority. The appeal should have been properly drafted.

However, as noticed above along with the appeal, affidavit of Mr.

W.P.(C) No.5550/2008 Page 3 Subhash Chand Mangla was filed stating that he was the attorney of

Matwal chand and in that capacity he was filing the appeal on behalf of

the partnership firm.

7. In these circumstances, the impugned orders dated 8 th

December, 2007 and 17th April, 2008 are set aside subject to the

petitioner paying costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent No.2. The said

costs will be paid within a period of one month from today. It is

clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the right of

Mr. Subhash Chand Mangla to file appeal on behalf of the partnership

firm, genuineness of the power of attorney and also on the question

that the plot had been sub-let and transferred to a third party. These

questions can be raised by the respondents before the appellate

authority and will be examined in accordance with law. Original power

of attorney will be also produced before the Additional District Judge at

time of hearing of the appeal. Receipt of payment of costs will be

produced before the Additional District Judge. The petitioner will

appear before the Additional District Judge on 15th March, 2010 at 2

P.M.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

FEBRUARY 18, 2010
NA




W.P.(C) No.5550/2008                                               Page 4