Compliance with the terms and conditions of allotment, including prohibition on unauthorized constructions and transfer of possession, is essential to contest eviction under the DUSIB Act, 2010.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 07.10.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 14254/2022. The said Writ Petition was filed against the Orders passed by the Respondents herein for eviction of the Appellant in respect of shop No.38, DDA Market, Dakshin Puri Extension, New Delhi-110062 (hereinafter referred to as `shop in question'). These proceedings were constituted under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as `DUSIB Act, 2010').

2. It is stated that the Appellant was merely 14 years of age when the shop in question was allotted to his father in the year 1976. It is stated that when the father of the Appellant had passed away in 2009, the Appellant was not aware of the terms and conditions of the allotment, and therefore, he could not apply for mutation of the shop in question in this name as legal heir of his father. It is stated that Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board came into existence on 01.07.2010 after the father of the Appellant had passed away.

3. It is stated that after the demise of the father, the Appellant continued to carry on his business on the shop in question and that no formal allotment letter had ever been issued to the father of the Appellant, and that only a possession slip had been handed over to the father of the Appellant.

4. It is stated that the proceedings of eviction were initiated against the Appellant and an eviction Order dated 01.02.2021 was passed by the Deputy Director (JJR) under Section 42 of the DUSIB Act, 2010 by holding that the Appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the shop in question. The said Order of eviction dated 01.02.2021 was challenged in appeal before Director (JJR) and same was also dismissed by Order dated 06.08.2021. A further appeal was also preferred before the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor under Section 45 of the DUSIB Act, 2010 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor vide Order dated 13.07.2022.

5. The Appellant, thereafter, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 14254/2022 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 07.10.2022 (impugned herein).

6. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Parties and perused the material on record.

7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that no formal allotment letter has been issued in favour of the Appellant's father in respect of the shop in question and only a possession slip has been handed over to the father of the Appellant. It is submitted that owing to the Appellant was unaware of the terms and conditions of the allotment, he could not apply for mutation of the shop in question.

8. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that there is no dispute that the father of the Appellant was in possession of the shop in question, and therefore, there was no impediment for the DUSIB in mutating the shop in question in favour of the Appellant.

9. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the Policy of the DUSIB ought to be that in case there is no dispute as to who is the legal heirs of the initial allottee, the idea must be to grant mutation in favour of the legal heirs so that they would be able to eke out their livelihood from the shop or property which had been allotted to the initial allottee under a Rehabilitation Policy. It is, therefore, submitted that the Orders passed by the authorities under the DUSIB Act goes contrary to the very purpose of rehabilitation.

10. Per contra, Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, learned Counsel appearing for the DUSIB, contended that not only it was found that the original allottee had proceeded to induct/transfer the Appellant into the shop in question but also massive unauthorised constructions have been raised on the shop in question. It is further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the DUSIB that shop No. 38 which is presently occupied b