M/S KHALSA TENT HOUSE PVT LTD v. M/S INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

1. The petitioner was a licencee for a restaurant space in Hotel Janpath, Delhi. Its licence was teiminated and proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 initiated for dispossession of the petitioner and for recovery of dues. The Estate Officer decided against the petitioner. An appeal preferred thereagainst also did not meet with any success. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) 6972/2011 and W.P.(C) 6973/2011 in this Court impugning the orders ofthe Estate Officer and the appellate couit and which writ petitions were withdrawn after some hearing on 22"^^ September, 2011 and time till 29"^ September, 2011 was given to the petitioner to vacate the premises. Liberty was also granted to the respondent ITDC to take steps for recoveiy of the amount of the aiTears ofdamages from the petitioner. 1/- 2011:DHC:15887 vJ %

2. This petition has been filed claiming, that the interiors were done by the petitioner in the premises at a cost of^ 4.12 crores and the value thereof today also is ? 3.[7] crores as per the valuation of a Government approved valuer; that owing to the said interior, the respondent ITDC will get a higher licence fee fi'om the prospective bidders / licencees; that the petitioner is thus entitled to adjustment ofthe value thereof from the anears due from the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner contends that if respondent ITDC does not agree with the valuation of the petitioner, the said interiors be got valued by the respondent ITDC themselves and till then the petitioner be allowed to continue in the premises on payment of rent/licence fee as being paid earlier.

3. Though the petitioner, alongwith the petition has not filed the licence deed but a copy thereof has been handed over at the time of hearing. Tlie respondent ITDC, under the same has a lien over the aforesaid interiors and other belongings of the petitioner in the premises for realization of its claims.

4. The counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice has contended that in exercise of the said lien, the same shall be auctioned and the proceeds realized would be adjusted against the dues from thepetitioner. It is further stated that if according to the petitionerthe value thereofis ? 3.[7] crores, the petitioner can pay the said value of the interiors and take away the same and the saidamount shall be adjusted from the dues.

5. Faced with the same, the counsel for the petitioner states that it is not possible to take away the interiors. Once thepetitioner itselfadinits that the same cannot be tal<en away, the petitioner cannot be heaid to aver that the value thereofof 3.[7] crores should beadjusted from its dues. As fai" as the 2/aigument of the petitioner of the respondent ITDC, owing to the said interiors fetching a higher bid / Hcence fee is concerned, the same is a conjecture and sunnise and tlie Court cannot issue directions on the basis thereof Moreover, often the interiors ai'c found to be brand specific and another brand maynot even desne any association withthe interiors done by the petitioner.

6. No reliefas sought can thus be granted to the petitioner.

7. The petitioner has also claimed the reliefofrestiaining the respondent from black listing the petitioner.

8. No need is fek to issue notice of the petition or to keep this petition pending on the said aspect in as much as this Courtin a)Mekaster Trading Corporation Vs. UOI (106) 2003 DLT 573, b) National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. NDMC MANU/DE/9790/2006 and c) R.K. Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. UOI MANU/DE/0428/2010 has held that an opportunity of hearing has to be given prior to making any order of black listing. The petition, in so fai" as the said relief is concerned, is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall not be black listed without issuing ^ anotice to show cause and granting an oppoitunity of heaiing to the petitioner and passing a reasoned order with respect thereto. The petition is dismissed. Dasti. CM No. 16379/2011 (for exemption) Allowed subject to just exception: =^RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 mb 3/-