O R D E R

% 05.08.2024

1. The Petitioner asserting lawful occupancy and settled possession on the basis of alleged sub-tenancy of the property situated at shop site no. 36 (also described as 43-44, Khyber Pass, Butta Singh Building, Delhi), at Khyber Pass Market, Civil Lines, Delhi1, has approached this Court seeking quashing of the notice of eviction dated 01st March, 20242, issued by Respondent No. 1, Land and Development Office, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. He asserts that he and his family were inducted as sub- 1 “Subject premises”

W.P.(C) 10761/2024 Page 1 of 13 tenants of the aforenoted property about 70 years ago and they have been residing there peacefully and uninterruptedly. The impugned notice stipulates that the 32 acres of land at Khyber Pass, Civil Lines where the subject property is situated, is under the ownership of Respondent No. 1. The said land is under the unauthorised occupation of squatters. Accordingly, the notice demands that all unauthorized occupants/squatters vacate and remove any illegal constructions from the Khyber Pass Market area. It warns of eviction and demolition of illegal constructions if compliance is not met.

2. Mr. Rahul Sharma, counsel for Petitioner, urges the following facts and contentions:

2.1. The subject premises were first leased out in 1933, by the Committee of the Notified Area of Civil Lines, GNCTD to the Manager, Cout of Wards of the estate of one Mr. R.B. Boota Singh.

2.2. Sometime in early 1940s, the subject property was sub-leased by the Manager of the estate of Mr. Singh, to the grandmother of the Petitioner at an annual rent of INR 360/-.

2.3. The Petitioner’s grandparents made timely payments of rent to Mr. Singh which is evidenced by the rent receipts issued from 1960 to 1970 in favour of the grandparents of the Petitioner.

2.4. On 20th July 1970, Respondent No. 1 informed the grandmother of the Petitioner that the lease in favour of the Manager, Cout of Wards of the estate of Mr. Singh, had been revoked due to their failure to renew the same and as such, the property would now vest with the President of India. Therefore, the grandmother of the Petitioner was requested to forward all

2 “Impugned notice”

W.P.(C) 10761/2024 Page 2 of 13 rental payments to the office of Respondent No. 1. This establishes the fact that the Petitioners had been recognised as tenants of the subject premises by Respondent No. 1.

2.5. In fact, Respondent No. 1 has been raising demands for rent/occupation charges in relation to the subject property, which were duly complied with, thereby acknowledging the Petitioner as a lawful tenant.

2.6. Thereafter in 1978, while returning a cheque for rent payments, Respondent No. 1 addressed another communication to the grandmother of the Petitioner, informing her that a temporary lease has again been granted to the Manager, Court of Wards of the estate of Mr. R.B. Boota Singh and the rent would now be payable directly to him. The communication also acknowledges the Petitioner’s status of being a lawful occupant of the subject premises. The said communication states as follows:

2.7. Since then, the Petitioner and his family have been in continuous, legal and uninterrupted possession of the subject premises. In this regard, W.P.(C) 10761/2024 Page 3 of 13 reliance is placed on the electricity and water bills paid by Petitioner and his family members, as well as the property tax receipts paid in terms of the subject premises.

2.8. In light of the above, the Petitioner and his family cannot be deemed to be the ‘unauthorised occupants’ of the subject premises. The impugned notice lacks substantive legal basis and fails to consider the accrued rights of the Petitioner as a sub-lessee and the consistent recognition of their tenancy by Respondent No. 1. Thus, as per Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 19713, the Petitioner was entitled to a show cause notice prior to issuance of the impugned notice. Moreover, the impugne