Delhi High Court
M/S Pearey Lal & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs Punjab National Bank & Anr. on 21 August, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21st August, 2012
+ LPA No.580/2012
% M/S PEAREY LAL & SONS PVT. LTD. ....Appellant
Through: Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Simran Mehta, Mr. Naresh Thanai &
Ms. Yogita, Advs.
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Y.P. Chandra & Mr. P. Nagpal,
Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 30.07.2012 of the
learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.2691/2010 preferred by the
appellant. The said writ petition was preferred impugning the order dated
26.03.2010 of the District Judge exercising powers as an Appellate
Authority under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant
against the order dated 04.10.1991 of the Estate Officer of the respondent
Bank, of eviction of the appellant from Shop No.13, ad-measuring 14'x33-
1/3' on the ground floor of the building known as Punjab National Bank
Building, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
2. It is not in dispute that the appellant was inducted in the said shop
under a Lease Deed dated 09.06.1966 for a period of three years only and
thereafter continued in occupation thereof on payment of the sum of `500/-
per month. The respondent Bank vide notice dated 07.04.1986 determined
the tenancy of the appellant with respect to the said premises with effect
from 31.05.1986 and on or about 27.03.1987 commenced proceedings under
the PP Act. One of the grounds cited for eviction was also of requirement by
the Bank of the said shop for its own use and for the furtherance of its
activities.
3. The appellant before us has contended:
(i) that the plea by the Bank of the requirement of the premises for
its own use and for furtherance of its activities was a bald one
without any particulars;
(ii) that the eviction proceedings were in contravention of the
Guidelines dated 30.05.2002 issued by the Central Government
and published in the Official Gazette of India on 08.06.2002.
4. We have in our recent judgment dated 23.03.2012 in LPA
No.977/2011 titled Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Damyanti
Verma and judgment dated 11.05.2012 in LPA No.9/2012 titled Indian
Institute of Public Opinion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of
India have exhaustively dealt with both the aforesaid aspects and therefore
do not feel the need to reiterate what is held in the said two judgments. To
be fair, the senior counsel for the appellant also, being fully aware of the
aforesaid two recent judgments of this very Bench has not re-argued the
matter and has only stated that Special Leave Petitions have been preferred
to the Supreme Court against the aforesaid two judgments and the appellant
herein is also desirous of joining in the said petitions and be granted
protection from eviction for a period of one week only for the said purpose.
5. We, for the reasons aforesaid, do not find any merit in this appeal and
dismiss the same. However, the appellant be not evicted from the premises
for a period of one week from today.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 21, 2012
'gsr'
