CM(M) 63/2020

Page 1 of 21

$~24

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 17 February, 2022

+

CM(M) 63/2020, CM APPL. 2540/2020(Stay)

M/S PERFORMANCE MOTORS PVT LTD

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Vikas Goel, Mr. Sachin Jain, Mr.

Himansh Yadav & Mr. Vivek Gupta,

Advs.

versus

M/S INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Anish Chawla & Mr. Neeraj

Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

YASHWANT VARMA, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner challenges the order of 27 November 2019 passed by

the Additional District Judge on an appeal preferred by it under Section 9 of

the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971¹. In

terms of the impugned order, the Appellate Authority under the Act has

remanded the matter to the Estate Officer for deciding the issue of

unauthorised occupation afresh and in light of the observations made

therein. It becomes pertinent to note that the Estate Officer by its order of

26 June 2018 had held the petitioner liable to pay damages in terms of the

provisions made in Section 7 of the Act. The Appellate Authority, however,

found that the Estate Officer had proceeded on the incorrect premise that

1 Act

2022:DHC:638

CM(M) 63/2020

Page 2 of 21

the petitioner had been held to be in unauthorised occupation in terms of the

order of 17 October 2013. This in view of the admitted fact that the said

order had already been set aside in an earlier round of litigation which

ensued interpartes. The Appellate Authority consequently held that once

the finding of unauthorised occupation had ceased to exist or remain

operational in law, the imposition of damages would not sustain. It

accordingly and in terms of the impugned order set aside the order of the

Estate Officer dated 26 June 2018 and remanded the matter for deciding the

issue of unauthorised occupation afresh noting that the question of damages

would abide by the finding that may be returned on that score. Before

proceeding to notice the rival contentions addressed on this petition, it

would be appropriate to briefly advert to the essential facts in the backdrop

of which the present petition came to be preferred.

2.

The petitioner is stated to have been inducted into the premises in

terms of a license deed dated 30 May 2006. The initial period of the license

was stipulated to be from 01 February 2006 to 31 January 2009. It was the

case of the petitioner that despite the execution of that license deed,

possession was not handed over to it. The dispute between the parties

ultimately led to the filing of a petition by the respondents under the Act in

May 2009. The reliefs claimed in that petition read as follows: -

“a. Pass an order in favor of the claimant/petitioner and against the

respondent by directing the respondent to vacate the premises in question

with immediate effect and further handover the peaceful possession of

the premises in question to the claimant/petition.

b.Pass an order in favor of the claimant/petitioner and against the

respondent by allowing the damages @ Rs.20.00,00/- Only (Rupees

twenty lakh only) and other applicable charges per month for retaining

2022:DHC:638

CM(M) 63/2020

Page 3 of 21

the possession unauthorizingly w.e.f 1.2.2009 till handing over the

possession.

c.Pass such and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the present facts and circumstances.”

3.

That petition came to be allowed by the Estate Officer by an order of

17 October 2013. In terms of that order, the Estate Officer came to hold that

the petitioner had become an unauthorised occupant after 31 January 2009.

It consequently held the petitioner liable to be evicted from the premises in

question as also to pay the admitted rent of Rs.2,82,000/- together with

interest at