IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Delhi Development Authority - Appellant
Versus
Prem Prakash - Respondent
CM (M) 1067 of 2019 & CM Appl. 31932 of 2019
Decided On : 15-01-2020
ORDER
1. The present petition arises out of judgement/decree dated 25th January, 2007 which was passed by the ld. Civil Judge in Suit No.438/2004 titled Prem Prakash Tyagi v. Delhi Development Authority. The same was a suit for declaration and permanent injunction wherein several issues were framed and the suit was finally decreed on 25th January, 2007. The operative portion of the said judgment/decree reads as under:
"In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The letter dated 27.03.2001 regarding the cancellation of lease deed is declared as null, void and illegal. Plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of injunction. Accordingly, defendants are restrained from implementing the cancellation order dated 07.03.2001 and 18.05.2001 in respect of property no.9/246, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
No order as to cost.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly."
2. The said judgment/decree was carried in appeal by the Delhi Development Authority (`DDA') and the ld. ADJ vide judgment dated 27th April, 2011 upheld the judgment of the Civil Judge and arrived at the following conclusions:
"32. For the reasons recorded, above findings of the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order dated 25.1.2007 that running of type and shorthand college was a permissible activity in terms of judgment in the case of O.N. Gupta Vs. DDA, cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court Division Bench in case of DDA Vs. National Tonnage Club of Farmers and is hereby set aside.
33. However since more than 12 years had passed between the date of show cause notice and cancellation of lease by the DDA no.7.03.2001 and DDA had DDA failed to take into account its own policy by levying misuser charges instead of cancelling the lease, the order dt. 7.3.2001 canceling the lease stood vitiated and is set aside. The DDA is restrained from taking any action against the plaintiff on the basis of the order dt.7.3.2001. Appellant DDA is further directed to consider the application of the plaintiff for conversion of lease of premises bearing plot no.246, Block C-9, Yamuna Vihar in Ghonda from lease hold to free hold in the light of its policy regarding compounding of misuser of premises by levying misuser charges in accordance with law."
3. As it can be seen from the extract of the Appellate Court's order, the ld. ADJ has held that the running of a typing and shorthand institute from the premises of the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") is not permissible activity and the said finding of the Civil Judge was set aside. However, the DDA was directed to, levy the misuser charges and also to consider the application for conversion of the property from lease-hold to freehold as per its policy.
4. The Plaintiff, then, filed an application for contempt sometime in 2017. In the said contempt, the allegation of the Plaintiff was that the Plaintiff approached the DDA several times for completing the process of conversion from lease-hold to free-hold, however, the DDA continued to delay the same. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought action under Section 12 read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter, "the Act") against the alleged erring officials of the DDA. In the said contempt petition, notice was issued on 9th January, 2018 and orders dated 10th May 2019, 17th May 2019, 1st June 2019, 3rd June 2019 and 11th July, 2019 were passed summoning various officials of the DDA at different points of time. The DDA, being aggrieved by the orders passed in the contempt petition repeatedly summoning various high ranking officials of the DDA, who have also left the DDA, has preferred the present petition.
5. In the present petition, on 19th July, 2019 notice was issued to the Plaintiff and the direction of the Trial Court, issuing notice of the contempt against Mr. Chander Shekhar Prashad, former director (RL) of the DDA, currently Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Personnel
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.