CM(M)--167/2014. Case: DCM LIMITED Vs. SHRI JASSA RAM. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CM(M)--167/2014 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | July 02, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 27th May, 2015
Decided on: 2nd July , 2015
+ CM(M) 167/2014
DCM LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Anand and Mr. Arush Khanna, Advocates.
versus
SHRI JASSA RAM ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.P. Aggarwal and Mr. Himanshu
Bohara, Advocates.
+ CM(M) 169/2014
DCM LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Anand and Mr. Arush
Khanna, Advocates. versus
KRISHNA DEVI SHARMA (NOW DECEASED)
THR LRS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate for LR
No.3.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. Since identical orders involving identical question of law have impugned in the present petitions, the two petitions are being decided common judgment.
2. A brief exposition of facts is that the petitioner DCM Limited owns 52 acres of land at Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj, Delhi (in short the
CM(M) 167/2014 & 169/2014 Page 1
property). In the suit property the respondent Jassa Ram is a tenant in No. 10, Ganesh Line No.6, MPl No.9022, Ward No.16, Gaushala Kishan Ganj Delhi (in short the tenanted premises No.1) and Krishna Sharma, since deceased, now her legal heirs are the tenants in respect of shop No.1, „D‟ Lines, MCD No. 7303, Ward No.13, Rani Jhansi Road (in the tenanted premises No.2). DCM Limited filed two eviction against Jassa Ram and Krishna Devi under Section 14(1)(g) & (l)
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) on the ground land on which the tenanted premises was constructed was required widening of the right of way of roads abutting the complex, and has handed over to MCD free of cost, as a condition of the layout plan approved by the MCD vide Resolution No. 1136 and 1137 respectively dated November, 1989. It is further stated that on the suit property complex be constructed being a Group Housing Residential Complex and factories as per the mandate of the Master Plan of Delhi, 1962 and the Zonal Development Plan of the area. During the course of proceedings DCM did not press the petitions on the ground under Section 14(1)(g) DRC The eviction petitions were dismissed by the learned ARC vide the dated 14th December, 2011 and the petitioner‟s appeals challenging the orders were also dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide orders 16th November, 2013. Hence, the present petitions.
3. In the eviction petitions it was stated that DCM Limited was a limited company and owner of the suit property. The suit property declared a slum area under the provisions of Slum Areas (Improvement Clearance) Act, 1956 and DCM Limited obtained the necessary to file the eviction petitions from the competent authority (slum) on
CM(M) 167/2014 & 169/2014 Page 2
August, 1995. The textile mill on the suit property has since been with effect from 1st April, 1989 in terms of the permission granted Delhi Administration, the judgment dated 1st March, 1989 of the Full of Delhi High Court and the judgment dated 27th March, 1989 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. After coming into force of Delhi Development Act,
and in compliance with the provisions thereof, a Master Plan of Delhi prepared which was approved by the Central Government under Section 9(ii) of the DDA Act and published in September, 1962. Under the Master of Delhi, the user of the suit property has been provided for complex and flatted factories as under:
“DCM SITE
The Delhi Cloth Mills have to move out of this congested area to the extensive industrial districts according to the time schedule given for non-conforming uses. The present site should be developed for flatted factories in gradual stages to relocate the industries now located in Ahata Kidara and other areas.”
4. Thus, in view of the provisions of the Master Plan of Delhi DCM Limited to shift its textile mills, the company has decided to close same and put its property to use as provided under the Master Plan. DDA has approved the re-development plan and granted no objection has also been approved by the Lieutenant Governor Delhi on 30th
1989. On 24th November, 1989 the MCD vide its Resolutions 1136 1137 respectively approved the layout plans as well. Thus, for the of the re-development the suit property, the tenanted premises as above are required to be vacated by the respondents.
CM(M) 167/2014 & 169/2014 Page 3
5. After the respondents Jassa Ram and Krishna Devi filed their statements evidence was led, and it was held that DCM Limited on its wants re-development of the area and there is no duty cast upon nor development work is to be carried out at the instance of the Government at the instance of any other competent authority and thus the ingredients Section 14(1)(l) have not been proved and the eviction petitions dismissed. Vide the impugned appellate orders dated 16th November, the learned Rent Controller reiterated the findings of the learned ARC dismissed the appeals.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that ingredients of Section 14(1)(l) DRC Act stand satisfied in the present case. The Master Delhi prepared by DDA has statutory force and if the re-development area is provided in the Master Plan, DCM Limited is bound to carry same. This position of law has been held by the Full Bench of this DCM Limited & Anr. Vs. DDA and Ors. W.P.(C) 2687/1986 decided on May 22, 1987. The Master Plan of Delhi came into force in 1962 and a 20 years was given to the parties to complete necessary actions at their and thus actions were taken in the year 1982. Sections 20(3) and 13 Act casts an obligation on the parties to follow the Master Plan and it the choice of the party. As per the Resolutions of the MCD as noted residential complex and flatted factories are being constructed and the area from the suit property on which the tenanted premises lies has given to the MCD to construct roads. With such a heavy obligation the petitioner merely because the petitioner had to file proposals to sanctions it cannot be held that the re-development was not at the instance of the Government. Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Adimurthy
CM(M) 167/2014 & 169/2014 Page 4
-
Moorthy (1983) 3 SCC 268 interpreted the expression “at the instance of to mean “at the solicitation of or at the request of”. Both the Courts held that it was obligatory on the part of DCM Limited to shut that the re-development was not obligatory. The eviction petition filed only after taking the permission from the competent authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 and were thus the year 1995. In view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court,
is no scope of interpretation that the re-development was not at the of DDA and this was merely a proposal of the DCM Limited which approved by the DDA and MCD.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the tenancy was created in the year 1969 after the Master Plan was carried and the eviction petitions were filed in the year 1995. The eviction petitions were stayed in the year 1996 and revived in the year 2005. concurrent finding of the facts by two Courts that the ingredients of 14(1)(l) DRC Act are not made out. The Master Plan only provided shifting of industry from Ahata Kidara and an alternate plot at Road was given in lieu of this land. Though the Master Plan came into force in 1962 DCM Limited sought approval of the DDA only in the year The proposal of the DCM itself states that it wants to commercially the property. The petitioner DCM Limited is just picking up few words from the Full Bench judgment which have no application to the eviction and misreading the same. A perusal of the entire proceedings would that the proposal was not at the instance of the Government but instance of DCM Limited, at best approved by the Government. The interest of the general public is not a parameter for deciding an eviction
CM(M) 167/2014 & 169/2014 Page 5
...
To continue reading
Request your trial