Eviction – Predecessor of the occupant-respondent no.1 was allotted the site in question in 1998 by license deed – Shop transferred in favour of occupant – Show cause notice issued alleging sub-letting and unauthorized construction – Eviction order passed ordering eviction of the allotee – Appeal dismissed – Challenged by occupant – Writ petitions allowed – Writ appeal by New Delhi Municipal Council – Dismissed – Held: Cut-off date for regularization of the shops, stalls, flats was 20.10.89 as mentioned in the Circular dated 25.07.96, relied on by occupant – Occupant was not in possession of the stall on or before 20.10.89 – Further, public notice dated 06.08.2001 conferring ownership rights to the shopkeepers was in respect of the 14 markets which does not include the market in question – It specifically stipulated that the earlier decision of the Cabinet dtd. 20.10.89 shall cease to operate – Therefore, the date fixed in the office order dated 25.07.96 ceased to be effective after the Cabinet decision dated 31.08.2000 – Moreover, the partnership deed executed by predecessor of the occupant with the occupant was in contravention of the terms of the license deed which prohibited subletting/induction of partner – Such license deed was executed after the office order dated 25.07.96 – Orders passed by Division Bench and Single Bench of the High Court set aside – Eviction order restored.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The cut-off date for regularization of the shops, stalls, flats was 20.10.1989 as mentioned in the Circular dated 25.7.1996. It is to be noted that the occupant was not in possession of the stall on or before 20.10.1989. Still further, the public notice dated 6.8.2001 was in respect of the 14 markets which does not include the market at Baba Kharag Singh Marg. The said public notice specifically stipulates that the earlier decision of the Cabinet dated 20.10.1989 shall cease to operate. Therefore, the date fixed in the office order dated 25.7.1996 ceased to be effective after the Cabinet decision dated 31.8.2000. There was a clear stipulation in the license deed executed by the predecessor of the occupant that she shall not induct any partner or sublet the premises. But in utter violation of the terms of the license, firstly, the partnership was executed and within two months, it was dissolved. The act of the predecessor of the occupant and the occupant are clearly and unequivocally in contravention of the terms of the license deed. Such license deed was executed after the office order dated 25.7.1996. Further, the public notice dated 6.8.2001 would not be applicable in respect of Baba Kharag Singh Marg market. [Paras 11, 12][236-G-H; 237-A-C]
2. The rights of Government of India in administering the markets as a lessor or licensee alone was transferred and not the land or the building thereon. The Council was to administer the properties as a delegate of the Union. The regularization/restoration of allotment of shops in para 3 was in terms of the policy of the Union and not that of Council. The relevant clause is “the guidelines and procedure followed by Land & Development Office and Directorate of Estates in the matter of….regularization/restoration of allotment of shops may also be followed”. Thus, if there is a policy of regularization or restoration of the Union, the same may be followed by the Council. However, the policy of the Council, if any, in respect of regularization/restoration of allotment would not be applicable. Therefore, even if the Council has not produced policy of regularization, it is not material to the questions raised in the present appeal. The rights of the Council are to administer the properties as a delegate of the Government of India and not as an owner as there were no transfer of rights in the markets in favour of the Council. This is evident from the fact that the revenue generated from the transfer of markets has to be deposited in a separate corpus of funds to be utilized only for the purpose of development of markets and for no other purpose. Such income would not accrue to the Council as a part of their budget. Therefore, the markets transferred by the Government of India to the Council have to be dealt independently and separately than the properties owned by the Council as the Council has no title over such markets as it has been asked only to manage them on behalf of the Government of India. The orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as also the Single Bench of the High Court are erroneous in law. The same are set aside. The order of eviction affirmed by the Additional District Judge on 5.12.2006 is restored. [Paras 15-17][237-G-H; 238-A-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.