Nusarat Tabassum VS N. D. M. C.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

S.L.BHAYANA
Nusarat Tabassum – Appellant
Versus
N. D. M. C. – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Chandra Shekhar and Mr. Saurabh Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Nilav Banerjee and Mr. Arpan Behl for Mr. Manoj K. Singh, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

S.L. Bhayana, J.—The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the Trial Court, wherein the Trial Court has condoned the delay in filing an appeal in favour of the respondent.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the shop No. 195, Palika Bazar, Cannaught Place, New Delhi was allotted to the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent Counsel on licence basis. Subsequently the petitioner joined the 2nd respondent in terms of partnership deed dated 2.5.2003. However, the partnership suffered dissolution in view of the dissolution deed dated 25.8.2003. according to which the petitioner remained in occupation of the shop in question with full knowledge and notice of the name of the respondent Counsel. The shop was regularized by the 1st respondent in the name of the petitioner. Since the term of the licence expired the respondent (NDMC) approached the Estate Officer for seeking eviction of the petitioner and respondent No.2 from the premises in question on the ground that they are occupying the premises unauthorisedly.

3. The Estate Officer issued show cause notice under sect