Section 53b of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, which requires a plaintiff to serve a notice on the defendant before instituting a suit against the Authority or its officers, is mandatory and its compliance is imperative. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the plaint liable to be rejected.

Mr. Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant in this application has prayed tor rejection of the plaint on a number of grounds.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 and has filed the suit for grant of decree for declaration with consequential relief of injunction pertaining to property comprised in Khasra Nos-1613/153, 1614/152 and 1615/153, situated in Baghraoji, Delhi. In nutshell plaintiff s case is that in lieu of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 487 and 488 (part), owned by it, which was taken over by the Delhi Improvement Trust for public purposes for re-alignment of the Daryai Nala, plaintiff-company was allotted in exchange the suit land. Actual physical possession of the suit land was given to the plaintiff by the Delhi Improvement Trust on 4th February, 1942 and 15th March, 1943 and eversince the plaintiff-company has been in continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit land in exercise of its right as the owner thereof to the exclusion of all concerned including Delhi Improvement Trust and Delhi Development Authority. After narrating some facts, the plaintiff has challenged the legality and validity of the proceedings initiated against it under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, alleging that proceedings are without jurisdiction since plaintiff is in occupation of the property as an owner thereof or in any case plaintiff s possession over the suit property has ripened into ownership by adverse possession, due to the plaintiff s remaining in occupation of the same uninterruptedly in assertions of its right openly and peacefully for a period of more than 12 years prior to the commencement of the proceedings, when the defendant for the first time sought to challenge and dispute the plaintiff s ownership. In this background, plaintiff has sought a decree for declaration that it is the absolute owner and in rightful possession of the suit property and defendant has no right, title or interest therein; the plaitiff having been allotted the same in exchange of its land acquired by Delhi Improvement Trust for the re-alignment of Daryai Nala under the Western Extension Scheme. Further declaration prayed for by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has otherwise become the absolute owner of the property by adverse possession. Consequential relief has been prayed for restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff or intrerfering in its possession.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT seeks the rejection of the plaint on the ground that : (i) the suit is barred under Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971 particularly when proceedings for eviction are pending before the Estate Officer; (ii) the non-mentioning in the plaint of the fact that a notice under Section 53b of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 was sent and delivered to the defendant prior to the institution of the suit; (iii) suit is barred by limitation; and (vi) since there is no transfer deed in favour of the plaintiff, the suit is barrel under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

( 4 ) PARTIES Counsel have been heard at length. The application has been vehemently opposed by the plaintiff.

( 5 ) SO far as the third and fourth ground for rejection of the plaint are concerned, the same at this stage is not tenable. Plaint cannot be rejected at this stage on the ground of there being no deed of transfer or the alleged exchange being not evidenced by a registered instrument. This objection is dependent upon factual aspect for which it will benecessary to take evidence. Clear distinction must aiways be drawn between two aspects, namely, plaint disclosing no cause of action and the plaintiff having no cause of action to sue. In the former case the plaint is liable to be rejected but in the later, the suit might fail on non-proof of the facts by the plaint if fourth ground falls in the later category. Even the third objection at this sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document