CM(M)/514/2018 of SANJAY KUMAR & ORS Vs NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CM(M) 514/2018 & CM Nos. 18148-49/2018SANJAY KUMAR & ORS..... PetitionersSANJAY KUMAR & ORS..... Petitioners

Through:Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Ms. SamiaMalik & Mr. Ankit, Advs.Malik & Mr. Ankit, Advs.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR

..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBAO R R%03.05.2018

1.The petitioners are occupants of premises which are described asservant quarters in property generally known as 10, Rajpur Road, CivilLines, Delhi-110054. It is not in dispute that the said property belongs toNorth Delhi Municipal Corporation (North DMC), the first respondentherein. It is also not in dispute that the property comprises of residentialquarters meant to be allotted for use as residence by municipal officials, thepremises occupied by these petitioners, apparently being servant quartersattached to such officers’ accommodation. The petitioners claim to havebeen in use and occupation of such premises for more than 65 years.

2.It appears that on 30.08.2013, Assistant Commissioner, Land andEstate department of North DMC had issued notices, statedly on the basis ofa survey conducted, calling upon each of these petitioners to show cause asto why they be not made to vacate and charged damages, their presence inthe premises having been described as unauthorised occupation. The saidaction gave rise to civil suit (suit no. 330/2014) being filed with the prayerfor relief in the nature of injunction against dispossession. The petitionershad also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the said civil suit. The prayer in thesaid application, however, was declined by the trial court. The petitionerschallenged the said decision by appeal (MCA 4/2015) before the court ofadditional district judge. By order dated 26.03.2015, the first appellate courtgranted the interim injunction, as prayed, and directed the respondentcorporation to restrain itself from “demolishing the suit properties withoutdue process of law during the pendency of the suit”. The copy of the plaintof the said suit (suit no. 330/2014) has not been shared with the Court and itis not understood as to how occasion had arisen against the backdrop ofshow cause notice dated 30.08.2013 to allege that the North DMC wascontemplating demolition action rather than eviction as was indicated in theprocesses.

3.Be that as it may, it is an admitted position of the petitioners that theywithdrew the above said suit which came to be disposed of accordingly. It issought to be explained that advice for withdrawal of suit had been given inthe wake of submissions made by the counsel representing the North DMCto the effect that no action for demolition was contemplated and further thatno such (demolition) action would be carried out qua the subject property

except in accordance with due process of law.Copy of the order dated28.07.2017 whereby the said suit (apparently renumbered as CS No.1405/2016) was dismissed as withdrawn has been submitted and it indicatesthat the trial court had clarified in the penultimate para that disposal of thesuit would not prejudice the power of North DMC to take action againstsubject property as per provisions of North Delhi Municipal CorporationAct, 1957 and other building bye laws.

4.On 07.09.2017, the Assistant Commissioner, Land and Estate ofNorth DMC issued fresh show cause notices to the petitioners calling uponeach of them to explain within seven days as to why the premises be not gotvacated “from unauthorised occupancy and damages for unauthorisedoccupancy be not recovered as per rules” and further as to why “evictionaction be not initiated” against them.

5.It is admitted position for the petitioners that having been served withthe show cause notices on 07.09.2017, they submitted replies before theAssistant Commissioner, Land & Estate. It is stated that personal hearingwas also afforded to the petitioners by the said authority i.e. AssistantCommissioner, Land & Estate who eventually passed orders described as“final vacation notice” on 23.11.2017, the concluding portion whereofwould read thus:-

“NOW THEREFORE, your occupation at above servantquarter is held as unauthorized and as such, you are herebydirected to vacate the aforesaid servant quarter under youroccupation within 15 days from the issue of this final noticefailing which forceful eviction occupation will be initiatedagainst you and the quarter will be got vacated without anyfurther intimation”.

6.The petitioners have filed fresh suit, in the wake of the afore-mentioned show cause notices and final vacation notices, seeking primarilythe following relief:-

“ a.Grant decree of permanent injunction by declaring thenotices i.e. (i) Notice dated 30.08.2013 (No Accom./L&E/2013-14/4867)(ii)Noticedated07.09.2017(No.Suptd.(Allot)/L&E/2017/D-735) and (iii) Notices dated 23.11.2017(No. Suptd.(Allot)/L&E/2017/D-984) are not inconsonance withlaw and no proper procedure has been followed while issuingthem and thereby, declaring the same as null and void andfurthertherebyrestrainingthedefendantsfromevicting/dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit premises asmentioned in schedule (i.e. Mentioned in paragraph no. 3)without following the due procedure of law”.

7.The civil suit (CS No. 3704/2017) was submitted with applicationunder Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC which was dismissed by theadditional senior civil judge by his order dated 19.12.2017. The said orderwas challenged unsuccessfully before the court of additional district judgeby appeal (MCA 14/2017) which has been dismissed by order dated27.04.2018, the correctness, legality and propriety whereof is sought to beassailed by the petition at hand.

8.The respondents have appeared, on advance copy, through counsel.During the course of hearing, need arose and consequently the AssistantCommissioner Land & Estate who had issued the impugned notices forshow cause and also passed the final vacation notices, has also appeared inperson.Midway the hearing, the counsel for the respondents soughtdeferment so that she could seek further instructions from North DMC. Inthe resumed hearing, the learned counsel representing the respondentssubmits that she has received further instructions in the matter, the same

being that the impugned final vacation notices would not be pressed orpursued for any further action insofar as thereby the petitioners have beeninformed that in case of default on their part in vacation of the subjectpremises within the period specified “forceful eviction occupation will beinitiated against them and the quarter will be got vacated without anyfurther intimation”.The learned counsel appearing for the respondentsubmits that she has been instructed to inform the Court that North DMCintends to follow the procedure prescribed by the Public Premises (Evictionof Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and, for such purposes refer thematter to the Estate Officer to secure order of eviction as also order forrecovery of damages in respect of each of the premises in question. Thelearned counsel submitted that for so pursuing the matter respecting thesubject premises against the petitioners, North DMC seeks time of twoweeks and undertakes that no forcible eviction action shall be undertakenpursuant to final vacation notices dated 23.11.2017.9.The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that in view ofthe above submissions and undertaking by the respondents, the civil suit inwhich the impugned orders were passed would be rendered infructuous. Hesubmitted an undertaking that the petitioners would withdraw the said suitby making appropriate submissions before the trial court within weekhereof.

10.The counsel for the respondent submitted that given the previousproceedings and the litigation, it is apprehended that effort would be madeby the petitioners to cause delay to the proceedings which are intended to betaken out before the Estate Officer under the provisions of Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.The counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with theproceedings before the estate officer and not seek any unnecessaryadjournments and ensure that such proceedings reach logical conclusionexpeditiously.

11.Binding all the parties with their respective undertakings, as recorded

above, these proceedings are closed.

12.Copy of the order dasti to all sides.

MAY 03, 2018

R.K.GAUBA, J