DELHI HIGH COURT
J.R. Midha, J.
New Delhi Municipal Council - Appellant
Versus
Prominent Hotels Limited - Resopndent
RFA 78/2014 & CM Nos. 4137/2014 & 15024 of 2014
Decided On : 11-09-2015
New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 - Section 385 r/w Sections 5 & 7 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Licence - Licensee estopped from challenging licence deed after 13 years after allotment - Licensee was well versed with the terms and conditions of the tender at the time of the entering into the contract with the defendant - Licensee having accepted the terms and conditions of the licence deed and having acted upon the same, is estopped from challenging the terms and conditions of the licence deed as unconscionable, arbitrary and unenforceable - Having entered into a contract with open eyes and having acted upon the same, the Licensee cannot wriggle out of the terms of the licence deed - NDMC has not fixed the licence fee payable by the Licensee under the Licence deed - Licensee has given the highest bid in respect of the licence fee which has been accepted - NDMC had no control whatsoever in fixing the licence fee and therefore, the Licensee cannot raise any objection with respect to the licence fee fixed on the basis of highest bid - Licensee without any protest agreed to the terms and conditions of the Licence deed and the Licensee was well aware of the liabilities of the Licensee at the time of entering into the contract with NDMC - Estate Officer is directed to expedite the proceedings under Section 5 and Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and endeavour to decide the same within six months.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 15, 2(e), 2(g) r/w Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Premises in question are 'public premises' as defined in Section 2(e)(3)(i)and the Licensee is in unauthorised occupation within the meaning of Section 2(g) as the license has been determined by the NDMC - Suit for permanent injunction is barred by Section 15.
J.R. Midha, J.:--
1. The appellant, NDMC, has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 22nd November, 2013 whereby the Trial Court has decreed the respondent‘s suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction.
2. Factual matrix
2.1. NDMC invited tenders for licence of plot No. 37, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi measuring 0.66 acres for the construction and commissioning of a youth hostel to meet the 56 requirement of ASIAD games in 1982.
2.2. M/s P.S.J. Housing Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. submitted the highest bid, which was accepted by NDMC and a licence deed dated 4th November, 1981 was executed by NDMC in favour of M/s. P.S.J. Housing Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. In terms of clause 22 of the licence deed dated 4th November, 1981, M/s. PSJ Housing Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. incorporated a public company, M/s.Prominent Hotels Ltd. with the object of taking over the youth hostel.
2.3. On 16th July, 1982, NDMC executed a licence deed dated 16th July, 1982 in favour of M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Licensee‘) for running an international youth hostel for a period of 99 years with effect from 4th November, 1981 subject to increase in licence fee after every 33 years.
2.4. The Licensee constructed a luxurious hotel, instead of a youth hostel, on the licensed plot which was completed in September, 1987.
2.5. In September, 1987, the management of the Licensee changed by the sale of the project by H.R. Sabharwal group to Hari Ram Kakkar, an Afgan national of Indian origin who invested in this project.
2.6. The licence deed provides for a minimum guaranteed licence fee of Rs. 21,08,040/- or 23% of the annual gross turnover of the Licensee, whichever is more, from the date of handing over of the possession, i.e. 4th November, 1981.
2.7. Clause 5 of the licence deed dated 16th July, 1982 requires the Licensee to furnish the annual audited reports to NDMC to enable the NDMC to compute the licence fee. However, the Licensee defaulted in furnishing the annual audited reports for the years 1991-92 to 1993- 94 and therefore, NDMC issued a show cause notice dated 15th June, 1994 to the Licensee to show cause why legal action be not initiated for violation/breach of the licence deed in pursuance of which the Licensee furnished the annual reports to NDMC whereupon NDMC computed dues of Rs. 3,05,67,355.20 towards the licence fee and interest upto period ending July 1994.
2.8. Vide show cause notice dated 09th September, 1994, NDMC called upon the Licensee to pay Rs. 3,05,67,355.20 towards the arrears of licence fee and interest upto July, 1994.
2.9. Vide show cause notice dated 23rd December, 1994, NDMC called upon the Licensee to show cause as to why the licence be not cancelled on account of non-payment of Rs. 3,05,67,355.20.
2.10. On 01st February, 1995, NDMC cancelled the licence due to non-payment of Rs. 3,05,67,355.20 and vide letter dated 21st February, 1995, NDMC intimated the cancellation of the licence to the Licensee and notified the Licensee that their occupation, after the cancellation of the licence, was unauthorised and therefore the Licensee should stop the use of the premises.
2.11. NDMC initiated proceedings against the Licensee under Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 for eviction of the Licensee and recovery of licence fees and damages before the Estate Officer which are pending.
2.12. Licensee’s suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction
On 28th February, 1995, the Licensee instituted the suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction. The Licensee pleaded inter alia that the Licensee completed the construction of a building on the licensed plot in 1987. During the course of construction, the Licensee found that the project was economically unviable as the Licensee was obliged to pay licence fee at the rate of 23% of the gross turnover with a minimum guaranteed amount of Rs. 21,08,040/- which was grossly excessive whereas the
A.H. Forbes v. L.E. Ralli AIR 1925 PC 146 [Para 6.24]
Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttarakhand
Abdullah Ahmed v. Animendra Kissen Mitter
Afzal v. State of Haryana : (1996) 7 SCC 397 [Para 28.3]
Aggarwal & Modi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Aggarwal & Modi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Council
Alopi Parshad & Sons v. Union of India
Amco Vinyl Ltd. v. Classic Industries
Amco Vinyl Ltd. v. Classic Industries
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 467 [Para 25.1]
Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter (1994) 4 SCC 104 [Paras 6.1 & 9.2.6]
Associated Hotels of India Ltd v. R.N. Kapoor
B. Sharma Rao H. Ganeshmal v. Head Quarters Asstt. (1998) 9 SCC 577 [Paras 6.17 & 6.3]
Bai Hanifa Jusab v. Memon Das A Gani Sardharia
Baradakanta Mishra Ex-Commissioner of Endowments v. Bhimsen Dixit
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. v. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. AIR 2008 SC 357 [Para 7.7]
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. N.R. Vairamani
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Bharti Cellular Limited v. 6 Union of India (2010) 10 SCC 174 [Paras 6.17 & 6.1 & 9.2.8]
Bishan Das v. State of Punjab (1962) 2 SCR 69 [Para 7.4]
C. Beepathumma v. V.S. Kadambolithaya. 1964 (5) SCR 836 [Paras 9.2.5 & 6.1 & 6.17]
C.J. International Hotels Ltd. v. N.D.M.C.
Chairman & MD, NTPC Ltd. v. Reshmi Construction
Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 [Paras 24.5 & 28.7]
Coffee Board, Karnataka v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Commissioner v. Issac Peter (1994) 4 SCC 104 [Para 6.17]
Corporation of Calicut v. K Sreenivasan
Cyril D’souza v. Ponkra Mugera 1998 (1) Kar.L.J. 659 [Para 28.9]
DDA v. Darshan Lal 2002 (97) DLT 573 [Para 7.2]
Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana
Dipak Babaria v. State of Gujarat (2014) 3 SCC 502 [Para 7.9]
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd., v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. & Ors.
East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs
East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta
Godhra Electricity Co. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1975 SC 32 [Para 7.8]
Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (1975) 1 SCC 737 [Paras 6.1 & 9.2.3]
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 791 [Para 23.2]
Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad
Herrington v.British Railways Board (1972) 2 WLR 537 : (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL) [Para 20.3]
Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
In Track Innovations India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India
Jasbir Singh Chhabra v. State of Punjab
Keshav Kumar Swarup v. Flowmore Private Ltd. (1994) 2 SCC 10 [Para 7.8]
Krishna Iyer J. in Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand
M/s Maharaji Education Trust & Anr. v. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr.
Makhan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India
MCD v. Shashank Steel Industries, (P) Ltd.
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammed Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 [Para 22.8]
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Golden Chariot Airport
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Golden Chariot Airport
Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kumar Newatia (2000) 2 SCC 367 [Para 28.5]
New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 537 [Paras 9.2.4 & 6.1]
Nibro Limited v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] [Para 22.9]
Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu
Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh
Panna Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P.
Priya Gupta v. Addl. Secy. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & others
Puravankara Projects Ltd. v. Hotel Venus International
Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar
Raja Ram Bhargva v. Union of India
Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. 2006 (1) AWC 34 [Para 28.8]
Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College
Ram Swarup Gupta v. Vishu Narayan Inter College
Rampur Distillery and Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi & Ors.
Ramsen v. Dyson, Bavasahed Walad v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd.
Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (2013) 10 SCC 95 [Para 7.9]
Rati Ram v. M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd.
Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath
Satyender Singh v. Gulab Singh
Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA
Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad & Ors.
Sharda Nath v. Delhi Administration
Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Others (1993) 3 SCC 161 [Para 8.5]
Sivayogeswara Cotton Press v. M. Panchaksharappa
State Bank of Haryana v. Jage Ram
State of Bihar v. Kripalushanker (1987) 3 SCC 34 [Para 6.20]
State of Haryana v. Khalsa Motors Ltd. (1990) 4 SCC 659 [Paras 6.17 & 6.17]
Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot
Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v. Hotel Imperial
Track Innovations India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India
Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin
Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union
United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.