$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 368/2024 & CM APPL. 32705/2024 DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHOURITY .....Appellant Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC for DDA with Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik and Mr. Saksham Singh, Advocates versus SANJEEV AGGARWAL AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Gurmeet Bindra, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon, Ms. Lovie Bagga, Ms. Yukti Bhardwaj and Ms. Pooja Giri, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 12.02.2026 CM APPL. 32702/2024

1. Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/ Delhi Development Authority seeking condonation of delay of 2241 days in filing the accompanying Appeal.

2. It is submitted that Civil Suit bearing No. CS(OS) 1518/2007 had been filed by the Respondent No.1 for the recovery of possession of property and mesne profit. The Appellant was initially not a party to the Suit, but was impleaded by the Respondent No.1 at a later stage.

3. Vide Notification No. 2187/DHC/Orgl dated 24.11.2015, this Court had transferred the Suit to the Ld. Tis Hazari Court vide Order dated 08.01.2016, which was re-numbered as CS No. 9612/2016. The matter was disposed of by the Ld. Tis Hazari Court vide Order dated 21.12.2017. It is submitted that before deciding the issue of “possession of the subject property”, the Ld. Trial Court ought to have decided the issue of ownership of the property. Without deciding the ownership and the right and the title of the property, the issue of possession cannot be decided.

4. The Written Statement of the Appellant/DDA could not be filed/ placed on record before the Ld. Trial Court and the Suit was decreed vide Judgment dated 21.12.2017 in favour of Respondent no.1. The main file of the property was not traceable and therefore an FIR was registered by DDA on 05.09.2016. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Appeal Committee on 18.04.2018 in the Chamber of CLD wherein it was decided that since the Decree was not against DDA and it is only against the Multan DAV Higher Secondary School, therefore Appeal is not to be filed.

5. The Appellant/ DDA is a Government Organization and the matter has to be examined at various departmental levels. The present matter was also examined at various departmental levels i.e. by the Law Department, Land Development Department and also at different verticals i.e. by the Dealing Assistant, Senior Law officer, Junior Law Officer etc. It was further submitted that the DDA is an artificial person and an impersonal body and has to act through different officials at different levels. The file is examined at different levels by different officials, which is time consuming.

6. After the deliberation by the Appellant Authority, it was observed that the Lease had been determined on 22.12.2006 for violation of the terms of lease, as a school was found running on the Suit Property however the same was allotted for residential purpose only. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Ld. Estate Officer for initiating the Eviction Proceeding under the Public Premises Act, 1971. The Ld. Estate Officer vide Order dated 10.01.2019 rejected the Eviction proceeding and directed to restore the Lease in terms of Public Premises Act, 1971.

7. The matter was referred to Law department on 14.05.2019 for opinion on the following two issues:

i. Whether Estate Officer (EO) is competent to pass the direction to DDA to restore the lease in terms of Public Premises Act, 1971.

ii. Whether conclusion of the Estate Officer that the Respondent was the absolute owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed. Whereas stand of the DDA (Nazul Section) is very clear that the property is a leasehold property executed by DIT.

8. A detailed opinion was given by the Legal Department on 24.05.2019, wherein it was mentioned that in accordance with the provision of Section 5 of the Public Premises Eviction