Sh. Om Prakash vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2024 Latest Caselaw 4743 Del

Delhi High Court

Sh. Om Prakash vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 23 July, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Narula

Bench: Sanjeev Narula

                          $~91
                          *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                         Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2024

                          +          W.P.(C) 10688/2023 & CM APPL. 41451/2023, CM APPL.
                                     51517/2023, CM APPL. 57036/2023

                                     SH. OM PRAKASH                                          .....Petitioner
                                                       Through:     Ms. Prerna, Advocate.

                                                       versus

                                     GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.        .....Respondents
                                                 Through: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate for
                                                          applicant in CM APPL. 57063/2023.

                                     CORAM:
                                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

                                                       JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The Petitioner asserts that he was inducted in the year 2010 as a tenant to the property bearing No. EG-109, first floor, EG Block, Inderpuri, New Delhi-110012,1 by one Mr. Harkishan Chand (since deceased). There was no formal lease agreement, however, as per mutual understanding, the Petitioner submits that he was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/-, excluding electricity and water charges. Gradually, the rental amount was increased to Rs. 17,000/-, in addition to ancillary expenses in respect of the subject property.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner pertains to notice dated 04th August,

"subject property."

2023 received from the office of Station House Officer, Police Station, Inderpuri.2 The notice mandates Petitioner to vacate the subject property and pay the outstanding rent, electricity, and water arrears to the complainant. The said notice reads as follows:

"NOTICE FOR VACATED H.NO.EG-109 INDERPURI To OMPARKASH BAIRWA R/O EG-109 INDERPURI NEW DELHI AND B-35 GOKULPURI DELHI 110094 MOBILE NUMBER

You are request an urgent to vacate the house no.EG-109 InderPuri and pending amount approximately Rs.105500/-as on date recovered from you (water over due Rs-7000/-and electricity bill Rs-7160/- separately) kindly ensure that the floor is vacated as request by the applicant and rent is also paid complainant may be reported within a week order by Santosh Kumar Rai District Magistrate New Delhi District Govt of NCT Delhi 12/1 Jam Nagar House New Delhi 110001.if you wail to do so; necessary action would be initiated against you as per law."

3. Subsequent to the receipt of the above notice, the Petitioner submitted representations to the authorities. He also instituted a civil suit in 2023 for decree of permanent injunction restraining his eviction against the landlord, which includes complainant/ Mr. Naresh Chand, son of Mr. Harkishan Chand. The Petitioner argues that the impugned notice has been issued without any authority and is also an arbitrary action, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950. He therefore, seeks a writ of quo warranto, requiring the Respondent establish their authority in issuing the notice as well as setting aside of the impugned notice.

4. The complainant, Mr. Naresh Kumar Chand, has applied to the Court through C.M. APPL. 57063/2023 to be arrayed as a party to the present

"impugned notice."

proceedings.

5. The counsel representing Mr. Naresh Kumar Chand has been heard at considerable length. He strongly contests the Petitioner's case, particularly, his entitlement to continue residing in the subject property. He refutes that the Petitioner was inducted as a tenant by Mr. Harkishan Chand in 2010 as Mr. Harkishan Chand had already deceased in 1992. Counsel for Applicant further points out that the civil suit preferred by the Petitioner has been withdrawn on 28th August, 2023. He informs that Mr. Naresh Kumar Chand has now filed a civil suit [bearing No. 257/2024] before the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi seeking eviction of the Petitioner, possession of the subject property as well as the arrears of rent. The said suit is pending consideration.

6. As the parties are now before the court of competent jurisdiction in respect of the question of possession of the subject property and the arrears of rent, the Court is not inclined to delve into the issue of entitlement of the Petitioner over the subject property in these proceedings, initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is directed against the impugned notice, purportedly issued under the directions of the District Magistrate, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi. In that light, the Court has proceeded to examine whether the impugned action is sustainable in law.

7. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of District Magistrate before this Court on 21st February, 2024, elucidating the authority exercised in issuing the impugned directions. The District Magistrate has explained that on 24th July, 2023, Mr. Naresh Kumar Chand had lodged a complaint alleging that the Petitioner, Mr. Om Prakash, was illegally occupying the subject

property. He had also registered a complaint in this regard with the police on 28th June, 2023, without any resolution. Consequently, in his complaint, Mr. Naresh Kumar Chand requested the District Magistrate to instruct the police to take immediate action and vacate the subject property and order payment of rent. The District Magistrate therefore, exercising his role as the Chief Public Grievance Redressal Officer in the district, issued the impugned direction to the ACP, Mayapuri, West District. He has categorically stated that this order was not passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Rather, the action is premised purely on the principles of natural justice, intended to ensure that Mr. Naresh Kumar Chand is not unnecessarily harassed by the Petitioner.

8. As the afore-noted affidavit lacks discussion over the foundation and authority of the office of a Chief Public Grievance Redressal Officer, the undersigned has researched on the subject. It is understood that the Government of NCT of Delhi has established a public grievance redressal mechanism, in compliance with the mandate of the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India.3 The Department has initiated a Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System,4 whereunder the Government of NCT of Delhi has established public grievance redressal authorities in various districts of Delhi, under the oversight of the concerned District Magistrates. Under this scheme, any aggrieved person can lodge a complaint with the CPGRAMS portal, prominently displayed on the website of the District Magistrate's offices,

"Department."

"CPGRAMS."

against any Central or State public authority. Upon scrutiny of the complaint received, the Chief/ Nodal Officer relays the complaint to the concerned department for response and adjudication. Further, as per the information displayed on the website of CPGRAMS, Grievance Redressal Officers are precluded from entertaining court-related matters or issues that are currently sub-judice before a court of law.

9. In the case at hand, Mr. Naresh Kumar Chand's grievance before the District Magistrate pertained to the police's inaction on his complaint regarding illegal occupation of the subject property and recovery of rent. The District Magistrate, by virtue of his office of Chief Public Grievance Redressal Officer, was not competent in law to order the eviction. The ambit of powers exercised by such Officers is confined to addressing inaction or protracted resolution of a complaint by a public authority, by issuing necessary orders. This does not empower the District Magistrate to pass orders for vacating a property for non-payment of rent, particularly when a distinct legal remedy for adjudication of such disputes exists under law. In the instant case, the issue of illegal occupation of the subject property by the Petitioner entails several contested factual aspects, such as the Petitioner's status as a tenant, which must be conclusively determined by an appropriate court of law before eviction or affixation of liability.

10. In view of the above, the impugned notice dated 04th August, 2023, predicated on the orders of the District Magistrate, is unsustainable and is accordingly, set aside.

11. It is clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and Mr. Naresh Kumar Chand shall be entitled to recover the possession and arrears of rent of the subject property through the court of

competent jurisdiction, in accordance with law.

12. All rights and contentions of parties are left open.

13. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 23, 2024 d.negi