Timely legal recourse is essential; negligence in asserting rights can bar relief, and possession rights depend on actual possession being taken.

JUDGEMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

CM APPL 6800/2025

1. Cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

Delay of 74 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of.

LPA 88/2025

3. Present appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866 assailing the impugned judgement dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being W.P.(C) 9410/2024 titled Jagdish Yadav vs. New Delhi Municipal Council filed by the appellant to the extent that the prayer to grant possession of Shop No.8, AIIMS Subway (Old Shop No.4, AIIMS) was refused. It further seeks directions to the respondent/NDMC to handover the possession of the subject shop; to execute the License Deed with the appellant; and to raise fresh demand towards monthly license fee from the date of handing over the possession of the subject shop.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent/NDMC invited bids for allotment of a number of vacant shops/units in the NDMC area by way of an Open Bid Notice issued in the year 2014. The appellant submitted his bid on 12.01.2014 and emerged as the successful bidder for the subject shop and consequently, was issued an allotment letter on 14.03.2014. It is stated that the allotment letter was subject to various conditions, including with regard to payment of license fee, deposit of security deposit and payment of advance license fee.

5. The appellant claims to have completed all the formalities, yet was not handed over possession of the subject shop. It is stated that the appellant made several personal visits to the respondent’s office and submitted request letters dated 11.08.2016, 30.07.2019 and 24.05.2024 to the respondent for handing over of the subject shop, however no response was received.

6. It is further stated that due to non-response of the respondent/NDMC, the appellant was compelled to move an RTI Application bearing No.NDMC/R/2024/60537. In the month of June, 2024, when the appellant visited the office of the respondent/NDMC to enquire about the status of his RTI application and his representation dated 24.05.2024, he was informed by the respondent officials that a demand for arrears of license fee and current license fee to the tune of Rs.2,79,53,150/- had been raised vide bill dated 05.06.2024.

7. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred the underlying writ petition praying for possession of the subject shop and quashing of the demand raised by the respondent. The respondent/NDMC had contended in its counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge that it was the appellant who did not come to take possession of the subject shop despite issuance of a possession letter dated 17.04.2014. The respondent/NDMC therefore claimed that it is entitled to levy the license fee for the entire period.

8. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the underlying writ petition restraining the respondent/NDMC from enforcing the demand for license fee imposed upon the appellant in respect of the subject shop, as the possession of the subject shop was never handed over to the appellant. However, learned Single Judge, after noting the delay on the part of the appellant for taking legal recourse, refused the relief of handing over of the possession of the subject shop and executing a License Deed, so prayed for by the appellant.

9. Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned senior counsel for the appellant fairly states that the appellant is not challenging that part of the impugned order whereby learned Single Judge has restrained the respondent from enforcing the demand for license fee imposed upon the appellant in respect of the shop. His entire emphasis is predicated on the refusal of the learned Single Judge from a direction to the respondent to handover the possession of Shop no.8, AIIMS Sub-way (Old Shop no.4, AIIMS).

10. Learned senior counsel fairly states that though the underlying writ petition was preferred belatedly, yet seeks to ex