The main legal point established is that the party claiming a right in the affirmative must establish the same, and the lack of evidence to prove a continuing right to occupy a premises can lead to a finding of unauthorized occupation.

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

CM No. 9415 of 2016 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P. (C) 2194 of 2016

1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Airport Appellate Tribunal at Safdarjung Airport in so far as it relates to Appeal No. 16/CP/A-80/2015 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the eviction order dated 05.11.2015.

2. It may be noted that the said order also deals with Appeal No. 15/CP/A-80/2015 whereby the appeal of the petitioner, impugning the order of the Eviction Officer under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, ordering recovery of arrears against the petitioner has been allowed and the said order has been set aside. Since that part of the order dated 15.02.2016 is in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has not impugned the same. Even the respondents have not filed any appeal against the said part of the order so this court is not examining the order in so far as it relates to that appeal.

3. The petitioner – Delhi Gliding Club contends to have been allotted space in the Safdarjung Airport along with the use of a hangar for the purposes of flying activities. It is contended that since the allotment, in or around the year 1950, the petitioner had been carrying out the said activities.

4. In the year 2002, the petitioner was stopped from carrying out any flying activities in Safdarjung Airport. However, the petitioner continued to carry out ground activities.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that all flying activities at Safdarjung Airport were stopped in the year 2002 as the said airport was utilized only for VVIP movement and the flying activities of only certain VVIPs is continuing and apart from that no other flying activity is permitted at Safdarjung Airport. It is contended that after 01.04.2008, even the entry passes to the hangar at Safdarjung Airport were declined to the petitioner and the officials of the petitioner were not allowed to enter the Airport.

6. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that bills were raised by the respondents for claiming arrears against the petitioner at exorbitant rates. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is liable to pay only Rs. 1 per annum.

7. On 26.05.2015, the Eviction Officer issued a notice to the petitioner of Eviction Case No. 1 of 2015 and Recovery Case No. 1 of 2015 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent respectively. The said notice was duly replied to. However, despite the reply, eviction proceedings were commenced.

8. On 05.11.2015 the Eviction Officer held that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of hangar space measuring 825.25 square meters in the operational area of Safdarjung Airport New Delhi and directed the petitioner vacate and hand over the keys of the hangar space. The Eviction Officer also directed payment of a sum of Rs. 3,15,50,530/-.

9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said orders of the Eviction Officer filed appeals before the Airport Appellate Tribunal. The Airport Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal of the petitioner in so far as it pertained to the order directing the petitioner to pay the arrears and returned a finding that petitioner was liable to pay only Re. 1/- per annum.

10. The Airport Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order dated 15.02.2016, on the issue of eviction dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction dated 05.11.2015.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order of the Eviction Officer as well as the order of the Airport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the respondents have filed to show the proof that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the hangar space. It is contended that the respondents have failed to show that there is any termination or cancellation of the allotment to the petitioner. It is further contended that the show cause notice only pertains to the arrears of rent and since the appeal in respect of arrears of rent has been decided in favour o