Co-ownership grants rights for aggrieved parties to appeal eviction orders under money laundering laws, emphasizing that eviction procedures must respect rules on joint properties.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner- Sanjay Jain has filed the present petition challenging the notices dated 20th December, 2022 bearing F. No. ECIR/DLZO I/43/2021 seeking eviction of the present owner, as also the occupants of the following properties:

1. 95/805, Vishal Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi

2. Flat No. 4/55 Ground Floor, Madhuban, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019

3. Shop No. L-1/L-5, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi

4. B-19 Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi 48

5. Ground Floor at B-78 Defence Colony, New Delhi

6. Plot No. 44, Sukhchain Marg, DLF Qutab Enclave, Gurugram (Haryana)

3. The said notices are a culmination of orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (AA) in Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) 3/2022 dated 19th April, 2022 passed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Delhi in ECIR No. ECIR/DLZO-I/43/2021.

4. A provisional attachment order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority directing attachment of the above-mentioned properties in proceedings which were commenced against one Sh. Pankaj Jain. The said PAO was confirmed on 29th September, 2022 by the AA. The value assessed of these properties is a total sum of Rs. 66,84,151 and the value of Mr. Pankaj Jain's share in the said properties has been assessed to be Rs.32,65,516/-. The said order dated 29th September, 2022 which involved these properties has been challenged by Sh. Pankaj Jain and is pending before the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter, `PMLA') Appellate Tribunal. The appeal is yet to be heard by the Tribunal. In the meantime, the impugned notices have been issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking eviction of all the occupants of the said properties.

5. Mr. Aggarwal, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that some of the properties concerned are residential properties where the family of Sh. Sanjay Jain, are residing. Sh. Sanjay Jain himself is in judicial custody. It is his submission that since the Petitioner is 50% owner of all these properties, the occupants cannot be evicted in this manner. He further submits that the value ascribed to these properties is to the tune of Rs.32,65,516/- and the same ought to be permitted to be deposited by the Petitioner in lieu of the attachment order. It is the case of the Petitioner that the eviction which is being sought is contrary to Rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013.

6. Mr. Zoheb Hosain, ld. Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submits that Sh. Pankaj Jain has absconded and is not submitting himself to due process in India despite warrants having been issued against him. As per ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, Sh. Pankaj Jain resides in London with his family. According to Mr. Aggarwal, the properties at serial numbers 2, 3, 4 and 7 are tenanted premises in respect of which the Enforcement Directorate is only entitled to get the lease amount or the rent from the concerned occupants and cannot evict the said occupants.

7. Heard. Admittedly, Sh. Pankaj Jain and Sh. Sanjay Jain are brothers. They own equal shares in the properties listed above. The ED is seeking eviction of the occupants from the properties, qua the share of Sh. Pankaj Jain, but the same are under occupation of the family of Sh. Sanjay Jain or tenants. The appeal filed by Sh. Pankaj Jain against whom the attachment order has been finally confirmed, is presently pending before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 25 of PMLA.

8. Appeals