The Gondals Press vs Punjab National Bank & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 6463 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Date of decision: 5th November, 2012

+                              LPA No.731/2012

      THE GONDALS PRESS                               ..... Petitioner
                  Through:           Mr. Ajay Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                                     Amitabh Narayan, Advs.

                                  Versus

    PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.               ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajat Sharma, Adv. for R-4.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 31.10.2012 of the

learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.3721/2012 preferred by the

appellant. The said writ petition was filed impugning the order dated

31.05.2012 of the District Judge exercising powers as an Appellate

Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)

Act, 1971 (PP Act) dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against

the order dated 27.03.2012 of the Estate Officer of the respondent Bank of

eviction of the appellant from an area comprising of 2223 sq. ft. on the

Ground and Mezzanine Floor of property No.12/90, Connaught Circus, New

Delhi.

2. The challenge by the appellant is threefold. Firstly, it is contended

that prior to the respondent Bank acquiring the said property in an auction

sale, the same had been re-entered by the Land & Development Office

(L&DO) of the Government of India being the lessor of the land underneath

the property and thus no title was acquired by the respondent Bank and the

said property was not "public premises" within the meaning of Section 2(e)

of the PP Act, for the Estate Officer of the respondent Bank to pass an order

with respect thereto. Secondly, it is contended that no bona fide requirement,

on which ground the appellant was sought to be evicted, had been

established and rather it stood admitted that the eviction of the appellant was

with profit motive. Lastly, it is contended that no proper opportunity to lead

evidence was given to the appellant by the Estate Officer of the respondent

Bank.

3. As far as the first of the challenge aforesaid is concerned, the admitted

position is that when the respondent Bank, after bidding for the said property

in an auction, had applied to the Court for confirmation of the sale in its

favour, the L&DO had objected on the ground that the property having

already been re-entered, no title could be conveyed to the respondent Bank.

The said application of the L&DO was rejected giving liberty to the L&DO

to seek its remedies. Not only so, the Supreme Court in Shanti Sharma Vs.

Ved Prabha (1987) 4 SCC 193 has held that re-entry effected by the L&DO

of lease with respect to the land underneath the property does not prevent the

lessee of the said land from seeking eviction of his / her / its tenant in the

property constructed on the said land, as owner thereof. It was held that

unless the L&DO, pursuant to the said re-entry, repossess the property, the

lessee of the land is fully entitled to deal with the tenants inducted in the

property constructed over the said land as owner / landlord and the tenants of

the lessee cannot challenge the title of their landlord. Upon the senior

counsel for the appellant being confronted with the said judgment, he had no

reply thereto, save for referring to Bharat Sales Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Devi

(2002) 5 SCC 629. He contends that the Supreme Court in the said case, in

a case of re-entry by the L&DO, had directed the possession of the premises

to be delivered by the tenant to the L&DO and not to its landlord. We have,

on demur, asked the senior counsel for the appellant whether the appellant is

willing to hand over possession to the L&DO, if not to the respondent Bank.

The answer is in the negative. The said conduct of the appellant

demonstrates the mala fides of the appellant in seeking to retain possession

of a valuable property in the prime central business district of the capital city

of Delhi on some pretext or the other. The judgment in Bharat Sales Ltd.

supra, turns on its own facts. That was a case under Section 14(1)(k) of the

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and in which proceedings, the L&DO was also

a party. Such is not the case here. On the contrary, the plea of the L&DO

has already been negatived while confirming the sale in favour of the

respondent Bank. The L&DO having not taken any steps till now for

repossessing the property, the appellant cannot wriggle out of eviction order

if otherwise found to be validly passed by setting up a title in the L&DO.

Moreover, the respondent is a nationalized Bank and the L&DO has a policy

of revoking the re-entry upon the reasons on account whereof re-entry was

effected being remedied and the charges therefor being paid. There is

nothing to suggest that the said charges cannot be recovered from the

respondent Bank. We therefore do not find any merit in the said ground of

challenge.

4. As far as the second ground aforesaid of challenge is concerned, the

finding of the premises being required by the respondent Bank is a finding of

fact, not interferable in writ jurisdiction much less in an appeal arising

therefrom. The appellant admittedly is an old tenant in the premises at a

meager rent. This Court in Iyer & Son Pvt. Ltd. Vs. LIC of India (2007) X

AD (Delhi) 643 affirmed recently in Life Insurance Corporation of India

Vs. Damyanti Verma MANU/DE/1143/2012 and in Indian Institute of

Public Opinion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India 2012

(130) DRJ 157 has held a Public Sector Bank as the respondent to be fully

justified in endeavouring to earn maximum out of its properties. No case

thus for interference with the findings of the Estate Officer affirmed by the

District Judge, of the requirement of the premises by the respondent Bank

for its own use is made out. We may also notice that there is no challenge to

the fact that the lease of the appellant of the said premises stands validly

determined and whereafter the appellant is an unauthorized occupant of the

said premises and is not entitled to retain possession thereof.

5. As far as the last challenge is concerned, the learned District Judge

has negatived the same observing that the very fact that the proceedings

remained pending before the Estate Officer for a period of 28 years is

sufficient to negative any inference of the appellant having been deprived of

a proper opportunity. We find the said reasoning to be perfectly in order.

Even otherwise, the appellant seeks opportunity to establish the title of the

property of the L&DO and which as aforesaid is impermissible.

6. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.

Though the learned Single Judge, finding the writ petition in abuse of the

process of the Court imposed cost of `50,000/- on the appellant, we while

not interfering with the said direction, refrain ourselves from imposing any

further cost.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE NOVEMBER 05, 2012 „gsr‟