Vinod Malhotra v. Union of India and Anr

2. The petitioner since then has filed an affidavit dated 23rd November, 2015 deposing, i) that the first floor area ad-measuring 560 sq. ft. was in the tenancy of Mrs. Saroj Sawhney who was evicted on 30th April, 1985; ii) that an area of 2531 sq. ft. on the ground floor was in occupation of Adarsh School which was evicted on 31st December, 1991; iii) that the Garage Block on the ground floor ad-measuring 372 sq. ft. was in occupation of Primary Nursery School which was evicted on 23rd February, 1999; iv) that in C.R. No.41/1985 titled Mrs. Saroj Sawhney Vs. Dr. Mrs. S. Malhotra a settlement was arrived at as recorded in the order dated 18th March, 1985; v) that in SAO No.155/1976 titled Mrs. Miran Mahajan Vs. Smt. Satyawati Malhotra a settlement was arrived at as recorded in the order dated 18th December, 1987 / 11th January, 1988; vi) that in eviction proceedings with respect to the garage portion inquiry under Section 14(11) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958 was concluded vide order dated 4th September, 1998 and as the tenant did not comply with the order, warrants of possession were issued; vii) that eviction of the tenant on the remaining ground floor under Section 14(1)(k) of the DRC Act was unsuccessful for the reason that running of recognized school was held to be not a misuse and the said tenant was ultimately evicted under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act; viii) that the tenant on the first floor was evicted under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act; ix) that on 27th July, 2005, the Delhi Government granted licence to the petitioner to use six rooms at ground floor in the name of Canadian Court between 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; x) this was held to be a misuse; xi) that the premises were re-inspected on 6th January, 2006 when no such misuse was found; xii) that the L&DO has not provided copies of inspection reports to the petitioner; xiii) that the petitioner removed the structures raised by the tenant on receipt of inspection report dated 7th October, 2005 and such removal was noted in the subsequent inspection; xiv) that the L&DO has not raised any demand for misuse; xiv) that the petitioner has been paying ground rent regularly.

3. I am afraid, the aforesaid affidavit also does not explain the position totally and I am on the basis thereof also unable to hold conclusively that the demand raised by the respondent L&DO for misuse charges and for unauthorized construction raised over leased land is unjustified. The same is a question of fact to be determined by examination and cross examination of witnesses.

4. Though the counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to Union of India Vs. Jor Bagh Association Regd. 2012 (188) DLT 25 but the Division Bench of this Court in para 32 of the said judgment has set aside the judgment of the Single Judge that no such charges can be recovered by the L&DO and held the L&DO entitled to recover the same. Once it is so, it is a matter of factual enquiry whether there was any misuse and unauthorized construction and if so for what period and to what amounts the respondent is entitled thereunder. Else, the respondent would be entitled to determine the lease and proceed to repossess the premises.

5. The petition is thus dismissed with liberty however to the petitioner to impugn the demand of the L&DO as impugned herein in an appropriate civil proceeding. Since notice of this petition was issued and the petition entertained, it is clarified that subject to the petition being filed on or before 15th February, 2016, the period from 23rd December, 2011 when notice of the petition was issued and till 15th February, 2016 shall not be counted in computing the period of limitation for such a suit. No costs.