Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 418

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
Simi Nanda – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 3065 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 11861 of 2023 & 11862 of 2023, W.P.(C) 3078 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 11997 of 2023 & 11998 of 2023, W.P.(C) 3079 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 11999 of 2023 & 12000 of 2023, W.P.(C) 3080 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 12002 of 2023 & 12003 of 2023, W.P.(C) 3081 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 12010 of 2023 & 12011 of 2023, W.P.(C) 3093 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 12066 of 2023 & 12067 of 2023
Decided on : 14-03-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Mr. Vineet Nagar, Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Mr. Krishnajyoti Deka and Mr. Rishabh Munjal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing counsel with Ms. Ashutosh Kaushik, Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of writ petitions filed against show cause notices issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and the need for the petitioners to file a reply to the notices and be granted full opportunity to appear before the Estate Officer.

Headnote:
Public Premises - Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants - Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - [Writ Petitions to quash show cause notices issued by DDA under Section 4 of the PP Act] - Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - The court directed the petitioners to file a reply to the notices as issued by the DDA and granted them full opportunity to appear before the Estate Officer and make their submissions. The DDA was instructed to consider the replies and various defenses raised by the petitioners. The court also emphasized that all parties should appear regularly before the Estate Officer and not take undue adjournments.
Fact of the Case:

The writ petitions were filed to quash show cause notices issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, asking the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the units occupied by them in Janak Place District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to similar treatment and protection as other similarly placed unit holders in the Janakpuri District Centre.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the writ petitions were not maintainable as they were filed against the show cause notices. It directed the petitioners to file a reply to the notices and granted them full opportunity to appear before the Estate Officer and make their submissions. The DDA was instructed to consider the replies and various defenses raised by the petitioners. The court also emphasized that all parties should appear regularly before the Estate Officer and not take undue adjournments.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petitions filed against the show cause notices issued by the DDA under Section 4 of the PP Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable as they were filed against the show cause notices. It emphasized the need for the petitioners to file a reply to the notices and granted them full opportunity to appear before the Estate Officer and make their submissions. The DDA was instructed to consider the replies and various defenses raised by the petitioners. The court also emphasized that all parties should appear regularly before the Estate Officer and not take undue adjournments.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions with the directions for the petitioners to file a reply to the notices, granted them full opportunity to appear before the Estate Officer, and instructed the DDA to consider the replies and various defenses raised by the petitioners. It also emphasized that all parties should appear regularly before the Estate Officer and not take undue adjournments.

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

1. The present writ petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners to quash the show cause notices dated 08.02.2023 issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) asking the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the units occupied by the petitioners in Janak Place District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. The notices have been issued by DDA under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act). There is further prayer for directions to the respondent no. 2 to frame policy/ guidelines for the units in question, in terms of the orders as passed by this Court dated 05.08.2016 in W.P. (C) No. 2280/2016, titled as Ganga Jamuna Saraswati Vs Union of India & Ors.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were allotted different commercial units in Janak Place Market, Janakpuri District Centre on different dates. As per the case of the DDA, the said licences were not renewed approximately after 2014, though as per learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the DDA has been accepting the payment towards licence fees even after the year 2014.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has handed over a chart showing the various payments made by the petitioners to the DDA post 2014, the details of which are as follows:

W.P.(C) 3065/2023	SIMI NANDA VS DDA	Rs. 36,37,620/- as license fees to R1 @Ground N, Pdf Pg 36
W.P.(C) 3078/2023	PRECIOUS HOSPITALITY AND LEISURE PVT LTD VS DDA	Rs. 75,00,000/- as license fees to R1 @Ground P, Pdf Pg 38
W.P.(C) 3079/2023	JMD HOTES PVT LTD VS DDA	Rs. 1,80,00,000/- as license fees to R1 @Ground P, Pdf Pg 38
W.P.(C)3080/2023	PLUM SALONS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S AMBIKA PILLAI SALONS PVT. LTD.) V. DDA AND ANR.	Rs. 1,83,00,000/- as
been paid by Petitioner to R1 after the alleged date of expiration of license fee. @Ground P, Pdf Pg 40
W.P.(C) 3081/2023	M/S LIFE CARE CENTRE VS DDA	Rs. 62,00,000/- as license fees to R1 @Ground P, Pdf Pg 38
W.P.(C) 3093/2023	AMIT GOEL VS DDA	36,37,620/- as license fees to R1 @Ground N, Pdf Pg 37

4. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the proposal is pending with the Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD), Government of India where the DDA had earlier mooted a proposal for transfer of shops to the various occupants at fair market value. Thus, it is submitted that the present show cause notices under Section 4 of the PP Act ought to be quashed, as the same are not maintainable pending the proposal with the MOUD.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 9033/2022 and other connected matters. By way of the said order, other similarly placed unit holders in the Janakpuri District Centre were granted interim protection, wherein this Court has directed that the said unit holders shall not be dispossessed from their units till the next date of hearing.

6. Thus, it is contended that the present petitioners are entitled to similar treatment and similar protection. It is further submitted that show cause notices under Section 4 of the PP Act have been issued to the petitioners in order to circumvent the protection as granted by this Court to other similarly placed occupants vide order dated 02.06.2022.

7. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for DDA on advance notice submits that the present writ petitions would not be maintainable, as the same have been filed against the show cause notices. She further submits that no eviction order as yet has been passed against the petitioners. She submits that the petitioners have not been paying the licence fees regularly. Thus, in view thereof, after approximately 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document