2009 Supreme(Del) 1090
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HONBLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL, JJ.
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Resident Welfare Club ..... Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another ..... Respondents
FAO(OS) NO. 387/2009 and CM No. 12513/2009
MCD. AND FAO(OS) NO. 399/2009 and CM No. 12829/2009
MCD. AND FAO(OS) NO. 386/2009 and CM No. 12510/2009
MCD. AND FAO(OS) NO. 388/2009 and CM No. 12516/2009
MCD. AND FAO(OS) NO. 389/2009 and CM No. 12519/2009
MCD. AND FAO(OS) NO. 390/2009 and CM No. 12527/2009
MCD. AND FAO(OS) NO. 394/2009 and CM No. 12731-12732/2009
Decided on : October 13, 2009
Mr.V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Raju Ramachandran,Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Arvind K. Gupta, Mr. Rakesh Garg, Mr. Mohit Garg, Mr. M.I. Choudhary, Advocates.
Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate, for the respondent-
Headnote:Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 - Licences to use community halls - Expiry of licence - Renewal clause - Decision not to renew the licence is based on the relevant material placed before the deciding authority Decision taken in view the numerous complaints made against the appellants - Doctrine of legitimate expectation does not give rise to an enforceable right - Raising of permanent structures which was otherwise not permissible under the licence cannot be said to give rise to any legitimate expectation - Decision not to renew the licence was a policy decision which cannot be termed as arbitrary and unreasonable - Appeals, dismissed.
MUKUL MUDGAL,J.
1. By this judgment we propose to dispose of a batch of connected first appeals against common order dated 25th August, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court disposing of the petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by the appellants herein.
2. The petitioners had entered into licences with the MCD, the respondent herein, to use community halls, belonging to the respondent for a period of five years each, subject to terms and conditions contained in their licence deeds. These licenses which were executed in August-September, 2004 have since then, either expired or are going to expire shortly. The petitioners had, on the basis of the renewal clause contained in the Licence Deed requested the respondent to renew the licence for a further period of five years which request was turned down. Aggrieved by the said decision of the respondents, the petitioners approached the learned Single Judge with a petition under Section 9 of the Act.
3. The relevant necessary clauses arising for consideration in this appeal are as under: -
“1. That in consideration of the payment of Rs.1,27,278/- as security deposit received vide Receipt No. …..dated ……… In the form of adjusted from EMD, being equivalent to six months licence fee quoted by the licensee for due and proper performance of these presents and also willingness of the licensee to pay Rs.21,213/- only per mensem for ________. The licensors grants unto the licensee and authorizes it to use the said Community Hall as detailed here above subject to the conditions hereinafter appearing for a period of five years commencing from the date of these presents renewable for another term of five years, ten years in all from the date of entering into the licensee deed for the first time in the year 2003. (a) In the default to pay the license fee of Rs.21,213/- per month as agreed together before the 10th day of the month to which it relates the licensee shall pay interest which will form part of Licence @ 24% per annum on the arrears of the Licence Fee from the first day of the month i.e. from the month in respect of which the default in payment takes place till the prior to the effective date of determination of license. In case the license fee remains unpaid for three months, the license will be cancelled. The interest @ 7 ½% per month over and above the existing License fee, and interest due before the effective date of determination of License fee, and interest due before the effective date of determination of License shall be payable by the Licensee till the date of payment. The Commissioner, MCD may, however, on receipt of request and clearance of all the dues mentioned above, restore the license on the existing license fee or on such condition as may be fixed by the Commissioner at his absolute discretion. (b) If the license fee hereby reserved or any part thereof shall at any time be in arrears or remain unpaid after the due date or if the licensee at any time fails or neglects to perform or observe any of the terms and conditions and covenants herein contained and on his part to be observed and performed and in any such case the Corporation may, without prejudice to its other rights, giving 30 days’ notice, in writing, to the licensee determine the license and re-enter upon the said premises or in part thereof. The Licensee shall upon such determination peacefully stop use of the said premises without any right to compensation whatsoever and thereupon this license shall be absolutely determined without prejudice to any antecedents breach of terms and conditions and covenants on the part of licensee. The license shall stand ipso facto terminated without any right to compensation. (c) Remission in license fee on any extraneous conditions shall not considered by the Licensor. ………………
35. That the licensor shall have the right to terminate the licence after giving one month’s notice without assigni