Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
New Delhi Municipal Council - Appellant
Versus
Ganga Devi & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 310 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 311 of 2015, Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2015, Civil Appeal No. 313 of 2015
Decided On : 27-09-2021
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Section 5 – Eviction of occupant from stall – Direction for regularization of allotment – Predecessor of occupant was allotted site in question – Cut-off date for regularization of shops, stalls, flats was 20.10.1989 as mentioned in Circular dated 25.7.1996 – Occupant was not in possession of stall on or before 20.10.1989 – There was a clear stipulation in license deed executed by predecessor of occupant that she shall not induct any partner or sublet the premises – But in utter violation of terms of license, partnership was executed and within two months, it was dissolved – Act of predecessor of occupant and occupant are clearly and unequivocally in contravention of terms of license deed – Rights of Government of India in administering markets as a lessor or licensee alone was transferred and not land or building thereon – Council was to administer properties as a delegate of Union – If there is a policy of regularization or restoration of Union, same may be followed by Council – However, policy of Council in respect of regularization/restoration of allotment would not be applicable – Rights of Council are to administer properties as a delegate of Government of India and not as an owner as there were no transfer of rights in markets in favour of Council – Markets transferred by Government of India to Council have to be dealt independently and separately than properties owned by Council as Council has no title over such markets as it has been asked only to manage them on behalf of Government of India – Orders passed by Division Bench of High Court as also Single Bench of High Court are erroneous in law and set aside – Order of eviction affirmed by Additional District Judge restored. (Paras 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Order of eviction was passed by Estate Office, Directorate of Estates, New Delhi on 15.12.2005, ordering eviction of the allottee from whom the occupant had purchased the stall in question. A partnership deed was executed by predecessor of occupant on 12.6.2000 with the occupant wherein predecessor had kept only 20% share in the partnership firm and the remaining 80% share was that of the occupant. Such partnership was dissolved on 3.8.2000, that is within 2 months of partnership firm was created. One of the conditions of dissolution deed was that the predecessor of the occupant would have no objection for transfer of the shop in favour of the occupant and regularization in her name. The argument of the occupant was that in terms of clause 3, policy of regularization/restoration of allotment may also be followed by the local bodies. Council was directed to transfer the allotment in favour of the occupant within two months. An intra-court appeal filed by the Council was dismissed on 6.4.2009 vide the impugned order. Still aggrieved, the Council is in appeal before this Court.
Findings of Court:
Policy of transfer of allotments of the Council is to be made 60 days before the expiry of the present license. The transfer is also to be allowed in the cases of partnership, transfer, mutation in favour of the legal heirs on merits.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. This order shall dispose of four appeals arising out of an order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the Letters Patent Appeals.
2. Since the facts in all the appeals are similar, for facility of reference, facts from Civil Appeal No. 310 of 2015 are referred herein. A show cause notice dated 11.3.2004 was issued to respondent no.1, 1[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘occupant’] alleging sub-letting and unauthorized construction in a stall located at Baba Kharag Singh Marg, New Delhi on the basis of a survey conducted on 4.3.2004. A reply was filed that the shop was allotted to Smt. Maheshi Dhoundiyal and the same was sublet in the year 1999 to the occupant. Smt. Maheshi Dhoundiyal transferred the shop in favour of the occupant in the year 2000 and therefore, the occupant claimed ownership of this property. In addition, the occupant relied upon the Circular dated 25.7.1996 as well as the policy adopted by the Government in pursuance of the Cabinet decision dated 31.8.2000 whereby occupants of the shops in the 14 specified markets were resolved to be granted ownership rights. Thus, the occupant claimed that there cannot be discrimination and she should also be treated in the same category as the occupants in the said 14 markets.
3. After considering the reply filed, an order of eviction was passed by the Estate Office, Directorate of Estates, New Delhi on 15.12.2005, ordering eviction of the allottee from whom the occupant had purchased the stall in question. The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 5.12.2006. The said order was challenged by the occupant before the Writ Court. The learned Single Bench allowed the two writ petitions holding that merely because market in question i.e.,Baba Kharag Singh Marg Market has fallen into the lap of New Delhi Municipal Council, 2[For short, the ‘Council’] by virtue of notification dated 24.3.2006, it does not mean that the policy regarding substitution/mutation of ownership for that market can be different from the one adopted by the Council for all other markets managed by it. Therefore, the Council cannot treat them differently and the occupant was held to be entitled to regularization of allotment in accordance with its policies. The Council was directed to transfer the allotment in the favour of the occupant within two months. An intra-court appeal filed by the Council was dismissed on 6.4.2009 vide the impugned order. Still aggrieved, the Council is in appeal before this Court.
4. The predecessor of the occupant was allotted the site in question on 4.8.1998. Some of the conditions of the license deed executed on 11.8.1998 read thus:
xxxx xx
11. The licencee(s) shall on revocation or termination of this licence hand over possession of the said premises to the Government in as good condition as they were in at the date of the licence, normal wear and tear excepted.
xxxx xx
14. This licence shall stand ipso-facto determined, without any right to compensation whatsoever to the licencee(s), in any of the following events, that is to say:-
(i) If the licencee(s) being an individual or if a firm, any partner in the licence firm shall die, or at any time be adjudicated insolvent or shall have a receiving order or order for administration of his estate made against him or shall take any proceedings for liquidation or composition under any Insolvency Act, for the time being in force or make any conveyance or assignment of his effects or ent
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
