The main legal point established in the judgment is that the language of the Allotment Letter and the presence of illegal occupants were crucial in determining the appellant's entitlement to possession, and the requirement of statutory notices should not bar the suit when contested to the hilt.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 4.2.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 4.9.2013; by which the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession of the allotted plot nos. 243 to 246 (50 sq yds each) at Block-A, Bhalswa Dairy Complex, Delhi, was dismissed on two counts. The first count was that the suit was held to be barred on account of non-service of statutory notice by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant as required under Sections 477 and 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DMC Act’). The second count on which the suit was dismissed was that it was held that in view of the language of the Allotment Letter/Order dated 8.1.1988, Ex.PW1/1 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, allotment is deemed to be cancelled as the plaintiff had not taken steps within three weeks for taking possession of the subject plots.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/defendant came out with a policy of allotment of alternative plots to persons who were carrying on dairy business within urban limits, so that the dairy business within urban limits is stopped. Appellant/plaintiff was, therefore, allotted plot nos. 243 to 246 at Block- A, Bhalswa Dairy Complex, Delhi, vide Allotment Letter dated 8.1.1988 and he was to stop running his business in urban limits. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that soon after receiving of the Allotment Letter dated 8.1.1988, when he went to the site to take possession of the subject plots, it transpired that there were trespassers on the plots and hence the appellant/plaintiff could not take possession of the suit plots. Ultimately, the appellant/plaintiff sent a Legal Notice dated 29.12.1990 (actually it is 28.12.1990) to the respondent/defendant which failed to yield desired results and hence appellant/plaintiff filed the present suit for possession against the respondent/defendant for giving possession of the subject plots or allotment of alternative plots of same size.

3(i) In the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant before the trial court the case which was set up is that the appellant/plaintiff never approached the competent authority for taking possession of the plots and it is therefore deemed to be cancelled on account of expiry of the period of three weeks provided in the Allotment Letter dated 8.1.1988. However, in the same breath it is stated in the written statement that one Smt. Gayatri Devi and Sh. Sulekh Singh had illegally trespassed into the suit plots and that therefore physical possession of the plots to be given to the appellant/plaintiff would be contemplated on decision of the competent authority. The relevant paragraphs of the written statement are preliminary objection no. 2 and reply on merits para 3, and the same are reproduced as under:-

“2. That it is admitted that the plots no.A-243 to 246 were allotted to the plaintiff and he was directed to take the possession of the plots within three weeks vide Allotment Order no. 3530/ADC/CLZ/88 dated 8.1.1988, but the plaintiff never approached the competent authority for taking possession of the plots. However, one shrimati Gayatri Devi and Shri Sulekh Singh illegally tress-passed into the plots in question on the basis of some forged documents. As a matter of fact, the answering defendant investigated into the matter. Shrimati Gayatri Devi and Shri Sulekh Singh showed allotment letters in respect of plots no.A.243-44 and A-245-246 respectively in their respective names. However, on verification of the same from official record, it was revealed that Smt. Gayatri Devi was allotted plots no.398-99 and Sulekh singh, plot no.394-95 but they made tempering on their copies of the allotment letters thereby Shrimati Gayatri Devi changed the plot no. as A-243-244 and