Delhi High Court
Ramesh Kumar & Ors vs D.D.A. & Anr on 10 May, 2012
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: April 19, 2012
Pronounced on: May 10, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 1468/2008
RAMESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg and Mr. Fazal
Ahmad, Advocates
Versus
D.D.A. & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate for
respondent No. 1/DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
%
ORDER
10.05.2012
1. The challenge to the cancellation of the lease of Plot No.TU-19,
Pitampura, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject
premises) and to the proceedings initiated under the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was raised by the
petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, i.e., in W.P.(C) No.
3944/2001, which alongwith other such petitions was heard and vide
interim order of 7th March, 2003, (Annexure F), respondent - DDA
was directed to process the application for conversion from leasehold
to freehold, upon deposit of restoration/misuse charges. However,
W.P.(C) No. 3944/2001 of the petitioners was dismissed for non-
prosecution on 14th November, 2003.
2. Petitioners claim to be ignorant of the dismissal of their earlier
writ and assert that they were pursuing their application for
conversion of the subject premises from leasehold to freehold.
W.P.(C) No. 1468/2008 Page 1
According to the petitioners, their application (Annexure G) seeking
conversion of the subject premises from leasehold to freehold made to
the respondent - DDA in November, 2003 is stated to be pending
despite petitioners depositing a sum of `3,00,000/- with respondent -
DDA in December, 2007 in respect of the application (Annexure-G).
3. Petitioners claim to be bona fide purchaser of a portion on the
ground floor, and the entire first floor and the second floor of the
subject premises and according to them, certain deficiencies pointed
out in the application for conversion of the subject premises from
leasehold to freehold were promptly rectified way back in November,
2003 itself and so resumption of the proceedings against the
petitioners under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 is clearly unwarranted.
4. Respondent - DDA in its counter affidavit maintains that the
petitioners were called upon to rectify the deficiencies in the subject
premises vide letter of 4th November, 2003 (Annexure R-5) and they
have not removed the deficiencies. It is asserted that the misuser of
the subject premises is evident from the site inspection conducted by
the respondent on 13th May 2008 and that petitioners have not placed
on record any document to show that the construction upon the
subject premises has been regularised by the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi. It is a matter of record that no rejoinder has been filed by the
petitioners to the counter affidavit of the respondent - DDA.
5. While relying upon orders of 14th November, 2003 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 1460/2001, titled as Vijay Gulati vs. DDA; W.P.(C) No.
3944/2001, titled as Devinder Bansal vs. D.D.A. & Ors.; W.P.(C) No.
3935/2001, titled as R.K.Gupta vs. D.D.A. & Ors; and the decision in
Ram Lal Sachdev vs. Smt.Sneh Sinha, 83(2000) DLT 141, it was
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that conversion of
W.P.(C) No. 1468/2008 Page 2
DDA's leasehold properties to freehold, even if re-entered, is
permissible and therefore, by reviving the proceedings under the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
against the petitioners, respondent - DDA cannot make the petitioners'
pending application (Annexure-G) seeking conversion of the subject
premises from leasehold to freehold, infructuous.
6. To the contrary, is the submission of learned counsel for the
respondent - DDA who relies upon decisions in L.P.A. No.976/2004,
titled as D.D.A. vs. M/S Ambitious Gold Nib Manufacturing Co.Pvt.
Ltd., rendered on 21st February, 2006 and in DDA vs. Parsu Ram &
Ors, 2007 (96) DRJ 548 regarding the correctness or otherwise of the
stand of the respondent - DDA being examined in proceedings under
the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
7. This Court is of the considered view that instead of re-agitating
the aforesaid challenge to the determination of the lease in respect of
the subject premises, in this second round of litigation, petitioners
should contest the validity of the determination of the lease of the
subject premises, in proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Such a course is open to the
petitioners in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Division
Bench of this Court in Ambitious Gold Nib (Supra), wherein the
question of valid determination of the lease was left open to be
considered in proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
8. Without commenting upon the respective stands taken by the
parties in this petition, it is left open to the petitioners to urge the
stand taken in this petition in proceedings against them in Case
No.EV/72(6)2001/Pitampura, as the petitioners have responded to the
Notice (Annexure-L) of the Estate Officer, by way of a Reply of 16th
W.P.(C) No. 1468/2008 Page 3
January, 2008 (Annexure-K). Needless to say that the petitioners
would be entitled to supplement the aforesaid Reply (Annexure-K)
within two weeks and to lead evidence in the proceedings under
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, if
so advised and to avail of respondent- DDA's prevalent Regulations/
Circulars regarding conversion from lease hold to free hold of
premises in their possession, to negate their eviction from the subject
premises. Let the parties appear before the concerned Estate Officer
on 28th May, 2012 and it is directed that the Estate Officer shall
conduct proceedings in this matter with expedition.
9. With aforesaid observations this petition is disposed, of while
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
May 10, 2012
pkb/rs
W.P.(C) No. 1468/2008 Page 4
