W.P.(C) No.5550/2008 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5550/2008 Date of decision: 18th February, 2010. MATWAL CHAND AINSHI LAL ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate. versus N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Amiet Andlay, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Matwal Chand Ainshi Lal, a partnership firm through its attorney Mr. Subhash Chand Mangla. 2. M/s. Matwal Chand Ainshi Lal was allotted lease hold rights in property No. M-4, Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate, Delhi measuring 1120 square yards vide leased deed dated 13th January, 1970. The lease deed was signed on behalf of the partnership firm by Mr. Matwal Chand and Mr. Ainshi Lal, both sons of Mr. Bodhraj. The property could only be used as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed. 3. There is an allegation against the petitioner that it had set up an unapproved and non-permissible unit of stainless steel re-rolling by pickling, which caused pollution. Notices were issued stating that in case misuse of the property continued, the lease would be determined. Opportunity of personal hearing was also given to the petitioner. After W.P.(C) No.5550/2008 Page 2 considering the facts, finally the lease was determined by the lessor i.e. Lt. Governor and the determining was conveyed to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary (Industries) vide order dated 16th April, 1991. The partnership firm filed an appeal before the Lieutenant Governor and opportunity of hearing was also given to the petitioner- partnership firm. The Lieutenant Governor dismissed the appeal on 23rd October, 1998 and the order dismissing the appeal was communicated to the partnership firm on 15th January, 1999. It was observed by the Lieutenant Governor that the partnership firm was engaged in the business of manufacturing of unauthorized SS re Rolling of flats as per the survey conducted by the department. 4. The respondents thereafter initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and eviction order dated 14th July, 2003 was passed by the Estate Officer. 5. Appeal against the eviction order under Section 9 of the Act was filed before the Additional District Judge. This appeal has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 8th December, 2007. The learned Additional District Judge has examined the entire facts leading to the determination of the lease, but has not W.P.(C) No.5550/2008 Page 3 given any finding. The appeal has been dismissed on the short ground that appeal was filed by the partnership firm through their representative Mr. Subhash Chand Mangla, who has signed the appeal but has not stated in what capacity he has signed the appeal. Learned Additional District Judge has further noticed that the appeal was supported by affidavit of Mr. Subhash Chand Mangla in which he had stated that he was attorney of Mr. Matwal Chand. Learned Additional District Judge has observed that the appeal is not in proper form. It was also noticed that the power of attorney was not placed on record. The petitioner thereafter had filed a review application, but the said application has been dismissed. The petitioner along with the appeal has filed copy of the Special Power of Attorney executed by Mr. Matwal Chand in favour of the petitioner. This power of attorney is dated 29th November, 1996. The petitioner also filed the affidavit of Mr. Subhash Chand Mangla stating that he is attorney of M/s Matwal Chand Ainshi Lal and is entitled to file appeal/writ etc. 6. The petitioner no doubt is guilty of lapses and negligence as the copy of power of attorney should have been filed on record before the appellate authority. The appeal should have been properly drafted. However, as noticed above along with the appeal, affidavit of Mr. W.P.(C) No.5550/2008 Page 4 Subhash Chand Mangla was filed stating that he was the attorney of Matwal chand and in that capacity he was filing the appeal on behalf of the partnership firm. 7. In these circumstances, the impugned orders dated 8th December, 2007 and 17th April, 2008 are set aside subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent No.2. The said costs will be paid within a period of one month from today. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the right of Mr. Subhash Chand Mangla to file appeal on behalf of the partnership firm, genuineness of the power of attorney and also on the question that the plot had been sub-let and transferred to a third party. These questions can be raised by the respondents before the appellate authority and will be examined in accordance with law. Original power of attorney will be also produced before the Additional District Judge at time of hearing of the appeal. Receipt of payment of costs will be produced before the Additional District Judge. The petitioner will appear before the Additional District Judge on 15th March, 2010 at 2 P.M. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 18, 2010 NA