CM(M) No.1024/2010 Page 1 of 6 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI CM (M) No. 1024/2010 & CM No. 14260/2010 (stay) % Judgment reserved on: 10th August, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 11th August, 2010 Smt. Kamla Bajaj W/o Sh. Satish Bajaj D/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal, R/o D-15/291, Sector-3, Rohini Delhi-110085 ….Petitioner. Through: Mr.Gaurav Bahl & Mr.Tarun Sharma, Advocates. Versus 1. Sh. Rakesh Bansiwal S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal, R/o 104, Mount Building, Andheri West Mumbai. 2. Sh. Mahesh Bansiwal S/o Late Sh. Devi Lal Bansiwal R/o 8772, Roshnara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 3. Sh. Mohan Lal Bansiwal S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal R/o Du-163, Pitam Pura, Vishakha Enclave, Delhi 4. Sh. Ashok Kumar Bansiwal S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal R/o 8772, Roshnara Road, Delhi Also at Bansiwal Ice Factory, Lal Saut Road, Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan CM(M) No.1024/2010 Page 2 of 6 5. Sh. Gopinath Bansiwal S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal R/o 8772, Roshnara Road, Delhi 6. Sh. Jiya Lal Bansiwal S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal R/o 31, Jai Jawan Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan 7. Sh. Nand Lal Bansiwal S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal C/o Bansiwal Ice Factory Lal Saut Road, Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan 8. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansiwal S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal R/o 4T 3, Jawahar Nagar Near Monolac Hospital Jaipur, Rajasthan 9. Sh. Dilip Bansiwal S/o Late Sh. Devi Lal Bansiwal R/o 8772, Roshanara Road, Delhi 10. Sh. Jaynish Sethi S/o Not known Shop No. 7, Indian Oil Bhawan Janpath, Connaught Place New Delhi-110001 ….Respondents Through: None Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes CM(M) No.1024/2010 Page 3 of 6 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner challenging order (undated), passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, vide which application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 8A & 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as „Code‟), has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that Shop No.7, Indian Oil Bhawan, New Janpath Market, New Delhi was allotted to late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal on licence basis in the year 1970. On 8.11.1982, Sohan Lal Bansiwal being the original allottee expired, leaving behind number of legal heirs including petitioner. Respondents No.1 to 3, filed a suit for possession, mesne profit, permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of that shop against Respondents No.4 to 10. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8A & 10 of the Code for impleading her as one of the defendants. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner is the married daughter of late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal and she being class-I legal heir, CM(M) No.1024/2010 Page 4 of 6 has a equitable right in the suit property and is entitled to be impleaded as a party to the suit. 4. Other contention is that, the trial court relied heavily on the policies of New Delhi Municipal Council when validity and applicability of such policies were not even in question nor New Delhi Municipal Council was a party to the suit and as such the same was not even required to be looked into at this stage. 5. In support, learned counsel cited following judgments; (i) Om Parkash Charaya vs. M/s Ashok Kamal Capital Builders Pvt. Ltd & Ors. 2000 VII AD (DELHI) 67; (ii) S.S Bakshi and Ors. vs. P.M. Mathrani 2005 IV AD (DELHI) 75 and; (iii) Harbhajan Singh & Ors. vs. Malook Singh & Anr. 2000 (2) CCC 416 (P & H) 6. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this Article is limited. 7. In Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954, SC 215, the court observed; “This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in – „Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. V. Sukumar Mukherjee‟, AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB) (B), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the CM(M) No.1024/2010 Page 5 of 6 Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.” 8. In light of principles laid down in the above decision, it is to be seen as to whether present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against impugned order is maintainable or not. 9. In Y.Duraisamy vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai and others, AIR 2002 Madras 276, court observed that:- “A licence is only a right to do or continue to do something which, in the absence of such right be unlawful. In general licence is only a personal privilege as such it is neither transferable or heritable. A licence is not annexed to the property in respect of which it is enjoyed nor is it a transferable or heritable right but is a right purely personal between the grantor and licencee.” 10. It is an admitted case of the petitioner herein, as well as of the plaintiffs before the trial court that Sohan Lal Bansiwal was the licencee of shop in question. Since, Sohan Lal was a licencee, the question of inheritance of the shop in question by his legal heir does not arise, as licence is only a personal privilege and is neither transferable or heritable. Thus, no legal right vest in the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is neither a necessary nor proper party in this case. 11. Various judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioner are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. CM(M) No.1024/2010 Page 6 of 6 12. Under these circumstances, present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. + CM No.14260/2010 (stay) 13. Dismissed. 11th August, 2010 V.B.GUPTA, J. mw