Delhi High Court
Shanti Devi vs P.N.B. & Others on 11 March, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
15.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7005/2007
SHANTI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.C. Sagar, Advocate.
versus
PNB & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. S.K. Pruthi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 11.03.2010
1. The petitioner has rushed to this Court without waiting for adjudication of
the proceedings pending before the Estate Officer. It is the contention of the
respondent bank that property No. 8, Ground Floor, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi was
taken on rent by them from the husband of the petitioner in 1973. The husband of
the petitioner expired in the year 1999 and the petitioner became the land lady. It
is also alleged by the respondent bank that in 2001 it was noticed that the
petitioner had unauthorisedly and illegally broken the locks and occupied the said
property. In these circumstances, proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 have been
initiated against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner in the writ petition has raised the plea of limitation and has
also stated that the premises in question are not public premises. However, the
petitioner has not disputed the lease/rent agreement between the husband of the
petitioner and the respondent bank. It is, however, stated that the said lease
agreement was for a period of 11 months. The petitioner also admits that the rate
of rent was Rs.500/- per month and it is , therefore, apparent that the respondent
bank was/is entitled to protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
3. The question of public premises as well as limitation can be raised before
the Estate Officer and it will not be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate and
decide the said questions. One of the questions which will be raised is whether
limitation Act, 1963 at all applies to proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, as it is not a court. Even if the said Act
applies, the second question which will arise for consideration is whether
limitation period will be 12 years or 3 years as per the Schedule to the Limitation
Act, 1963. On the question whether the premises is a public premises and also
whether the respondent bank as a tenant is entitled to file the proceedings are
aspects which can be gone into and examined by the Estate Officer. The petitioner
will be entitled to file an appeal before the District Judge in case she is aggrieved
by the order passed by the Estate Officer. By the order under challenge dated 22nd
September, 2007, the Estate Officer has merely rejected the application of the
petitioner raising preliminary objections and has held that these contentions and
issues will be decided at the time of passing of the final order. There is hardly any
ground and reason to interfere with the said order passed by the Estate Officer.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
The petitioner will appear before the Estate Officer on 22nd March, 2010 at
2.30 pm, when a further date of hearing will be fixed.
DASTI.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 11, 2010
VKR
