A single-judge bench comprised of JUSTICEV. KAMESWAR RAO of the Delhi High Court on 15.07.2019 in ARTI RANI vs NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (W.P.(C) 4899/2019, CM No. 21776/2019) dismissed the petition.

FACTS:

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi in interest of the respondent issued tenders vide public notice for allotment of car scooter parking/ shops/ kiosk/ stalls/ dhabas/ office units on “as is where is” basis. The petitioner had also applied against tender and being successful was accordingly offered a shop in Karol Bagh. Pursuant thereto a license deed was executed for a period of 5 years at monthly license fee of `Rs.53,020/-. The license of the petitioner was renewed vide a duly executed license fee for another period of five years upon 100% enhancement of the monthly license fee fixed thereafter at `Rs.1,60,040/-. Vide order dated January Rs.28, 2009, the license of the petitioner in respect of the shop was cancelled and she was directed to vacate the subject shop and clear the outstanding dues of `Rs.79,85,994/- payable for the period between 2005 till 2009.

She made a request to the respondent to withdraw the notice but no action was taken. Respondent had initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (‘P.P. Act’) which was decided by the Estate Officer directing the eviction. This decision was challenged in an appeal before the District Judge and the learned District Judge upheld the order of the Estate Officer which resulted in the writ petition before the High Court.

The Coordinate Bench of the court dismissed the writ petition which was challenged before the Division Bench. The petitioner had also filed another writ petition which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge which was also challenged before the Division Bench where both the appeals were rejected, but had noted the submissions made by the counsels including the counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that their case may be considered in terms of circular.

LEGAL ISSUE:

·        Validity of the circular issued by the MCD.

·        Conditions required to be fulfilled to become a valid licensee.

CONTENTIONS:

By appellant:

·        Respondent failed to consider the representation(s) in proper perspective as the case of the petitioner was covered by the circular as the petitioner was a licensee of the subject shop since the year 1997 and has further paid total license fee of approximately `Rs.2.10 Crores from the year 2003 till 2018 when the shop was sealed.

·        The circular was clear and categorical inasmuch as the same provides for extension of license of five years each followed by respective enhancement of license fee.

·        Respondent arbitrarily rejected the representations.

·        Respondent arbitrarily and unreasonably raised the demand of `Rs.7,29,01,924/- while overlooking the payments made by the petitioner till date.

·        An amount of `Rs.1,32,87,268/- was due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent and the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the same immediately but wasn’t paid as the respondent hadn’t come forward for reconciling the account in order to arrive at the actual and accurate amount.

·        The petitioner vacated the shop was also untenable which goes contrary to the spirit and directions given by the Division Bench in its order.

·        The petition should be allowed as the action of the respondent being contrary to the letter and spirit of the order passed by the Division Bench and the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the balance amount of `Rs.1,32,87,268/-.

By respondent:

·        The directions of the Division Bench in the appeals were very clear that the representation (s) of the petitioner had to be considered in accordance with the rules and policies of the respondent.

·        The directions of the Division Bench cannot have the effect of reviving the license that too when license fee was not paid

·        The petitioner who was seeking conversion of the property on lease basis cannot take advantage of her own wrongs by resisting the challenge to the eviction and now when the petitioner was evicted, seeking her re-entry in the property only on the ground that the directions were given by the Division Bench for consideration of the representations.

·        The petitioner failed to pay a substantial amount of license fee amounting to `Rs.7,01,74,820/- she cannot now seek re-entry in the property.

OBSERVATIONS: The court observed that:

·        The respondent was justified in contending that the possession of the shop in question was taken over by them while rejecting the representations.

·        If the shop being vacant, respondent was justified in considering the factum of the shop being vacant while rejecting the representation (s). The decision was in conformity with policy of the respondent.

·        It wasn’t the case of the petitioner that she paid the complete amount to the respondent. In fact, the petitioner was litigating with the respondent on the ground that the property in question needed to be converted as a leasehold property.

·        A general policy was adopted by the Municipal Corporation in the circular that the occupants on that date may continue as a licensee provided they clear all dues up to date with a further rider that there would be enhancement of license fee in every five years to the tune of 50%. Despite directions, petitioner not paid license fee and other dues.

HELD:

The court held that the impugned judgement couldn’t be said to be arbitrary, illegal or perverse. Therefore, court dismissed the petition.

For full judgement refer:

http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VKR/judgement/15-07-2019/VKR15072019CW48992019.pdf