Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
Mohd. Ubaid – Petitioner
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council – Respondent
W.P.(C) 12156 of 2018 & CM APPL. 47178 of 2018, CM APPL. 11959 of 2019, CM APPL. 7497 of 2024
Decided On : 22-08-2025
For the Petitioner:Md. Azam Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, SC-NDMC with Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
A party cannot claim rights in property through a predecessor-in-interest who has no legal title due to eviction, asserting the principle that no one can confer a better title than they possess.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Petition filed for regularization and issuance of a License Deed for the subject shop - The petitioner challenged rejection letters from NDMC, arguing violation of natural justice and unequal treatment compared to other applicants. (Paras 1-33)
(B) Legal principles - The court upheld that a predecessor-in-interest who has been evicted cannot transfer rights to a subsequent party; 'no one can confer a better title than what he himself has.' (Paras 13, 34)
(C)
Facts of the case:
The shop was originally allocated to a partnership firm in 1978; various transfers and subletting occurred, leading to the eviction of the predecessor-in-interest by NDMC. The petitioner had repeatedly sought regularization, citing procedural failures by NDMC. (Paras 2.1-2.46)
Findings of Court:
The petition was dismissed as the petitioner lacked grounds for regularization, and the issues were barred by res judicata and delay. (Paras 29-37)
Issues: Whether NDMC violated principles of natural justice and whether the petitioner could legitimately claim rights over the shop through the predecessor's transactions. (Paras 1, 27)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the principle that evicted parties cannot transfer rights they no longer possess, and rejected claims based on res judicata and delay. (Paras 34, 47)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking regularization of shop (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims of natural justice violation (Para 3) |
| 3. respondent's defense against claims (Para 4) |
| 4. court's review of petitions (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. historical context of shop's legal status (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 6. challenge against eviction and succession (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. ownership rights post-eviction (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. financial responsibility and claims (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. application of res judicata (Para 30 , 36 , 46) |
| 10. final dismissal of the writ petition (Para 47) |
JUDGMENT :
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions to the respondent – New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”), to regularize the shop bearing no. 83, Palika Bazar, New Delhi (“subject shop”) in favour of the petitioner, and execute a License Deed in his favour. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the letters dated 18th June, 2018 and 21st December, 2011, issued by the respondent, thereby, rejecting the petitioner’s request for regularization.
2. Facts, as canvassed in the petition, are as follows:
2.1 The subject shop was initially allotted to M/s Marveilleuse Arts & Crafts on 01st November, 1978, comprising of three Partners, i.e., Mohd. Shafi Wani, Mr. Gautam Mustafa Wani & Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Wani, who subsequently, entered into a Partnership Deed with Ms. Madhu Aggarwal. Later on, Ms. Madhu Aggarwal approached the respondent with a Partnership Deed and a Dissolution Deed, however, the necessary formalities for execution of the License Deed were not completed. On 25th August, 1987, Ms. Madhu Aggarwal entered into a Partnership Deed with Smt. Jasbir Kaur. Subsequently, a License Deed dated 08th November, 1988 was executed in the name of Smt. Jasbir Kaur, who then, entered into a Partnership Deed with Sh. Sanjeev Gupta on 14th December, 1993.
2.2 The respondent-NDMC executed a License Deed in favour of Sh. Sanjeev Gupta on 01st June, 1994. As no request for renewal was made on his behalf, consequently, on 07th November, 1998, Sh. Sanjeev Gupta was declared as an unauthorized occupant.
2.3 Subsequently, Sh. Sanjeev Gupta was also found to have sub-let the shop to one Mr. Abdul Rauf Javed, due to which, enhancement in license fee was levied. Further, the respondent proceeded against Sh. Sanjeev Gupta under Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (“PP Act”), on the grounds of subletting of the public premises, and also the determination of the License Deed by efflux of time. Pursuant to the proceedings under the PP Act, an Eviction Order dated 24th December, 2008, was passed by the Estate Officer, by way of which Sh. Sanjeev Gupta was evicted, and directed to vacate the shop within 15 days.
2.4 Sh. Sanjeev Gupta challenged the Eviction Order in the Appeal bearing no. PPA 110/09 before the District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, wherein, vide order dated 18th February, 2010, the appeal was dismissed, and the Eviction Order was upheld.
2.5 Thereafter, Sh. Sanjeev Gupta filed a writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) 1199/2010, titled as “Shri Sanjeev Gupta Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.”, challenging the Eviction Order and the order passed in the Appeal, i.e., PPA 110/09, wherein, vide order dated 25th February, 2010, the Court allowed temporary possession of the shop to Sh. Sanjeev Gupta.
2.6 During the pendency of the said writ petition, Sh. Sanjeev Gupta entered into a partnership with the present petitioner by way of a Partnership Deed dated 08th September, 2010, and the same was later dissolved by way of a Dissolution Deed dated 11th October, 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 26th October, 2010, applied with the respondent-NDMC to get the subject shop transferred, and regularized in his name.
2.7 The writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) 1199/2010 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03rd February, 2011, and the Court vacated all interim orders, and fu
