W.P.(C) No.7695/2008 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7695/2008 Date of decision: 3rd March, 2010. A.K.SABHARWAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Y.P. Bhan, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus N.D.M.C. & ORS. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 1. The petitioner on basis of bid @ Rs. 10.26 per sq.ft. was allotted flat No.203, Palika Bhawan Complex, New Delhi by the respondent NDMC for a period of five years. Possession of the flat was handed over to the petitioner on 6th June, 1984. Thereafter a written licence deed dated 15th November, 1984 was also executed. The said licence deed stipulated that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 5,932/- per month for the said flat. Clause-1 of the licence deed further provided that licence was for a period of five years and would be renewable for a further period of 5 years subject to enhancement of licence fee by 15% and on the terms and conditions as may be laid down by the licensor. W.P.(C) No.7695/2008 Page 2 2. The petitioner paid the licence fee @ 5,932/- per month till July, 1987. Thereafter, the petitioner stopped paying the licence fee. The petitioner vide letter dated 8th September, 1986 raised an objection that the actual covered area of the flat was 469 sq. feet and not 578.14 sq. feet and accordingly as per the tender he was liable to pay licence fee of Rs. 4,812/- per month. The petitioner relied upon clause III of the conditions of the tender document that the licence fee would be charged for the covered area and on as is where is basis. 3. The contention of the petitioner was that balcony or projection/chhajja outside the flat of the petitioner should not be included in the covered area and should be treated as common area. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent, NDMC was that the said balcony was accessible to the petitioner and a part of the flat, therefore, should be included in the total covered area. 4. In view of the complaint made by the petitioner, the flat was inspected in the presence of the petitioner and re-measured. Vide letter dated 2nd December, 1988, the petitioner was informed that the total area of the office area was 547.23 sq. feet and the area of toilet was 38.25 sq. feet. Accordingly, the petitioner was in possession of 585.48 sq. feet, which was more than area of 578.14 sq. feet for which W.P.(C) No.7695/2008 Page 3 the licence fee was being charged. Along with this letter, copy of the site plan with measurements was furnished to the petitioner. 5. The respondent, NDMC by another letter dated 15th October, 1990 informed the petitioner that the matter was considered after examining the opinion of the Chief Architect and Chief Engineer, NDMC. Balcony was part of the covered area as the same was not open to sky. By this letter, the petitioner was called upon to deposit arrears of Rs.3,07,803.50 within 10 days. The petitioner could not be served with this letter and the same was accordingly pasted outside the flat. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon file noting filed with the writ petition, which make reference to the comments of the Deputy Chief Architect etc. These file notings are internal comments and cannot furnish any right to the petitioner. Moreover, these file notings refer to calculation of floor area ratio or building bye laws, which are for different purpose. It is a stand of the respondents that all occupants in Palika Bhawan Complex were/are being charged on covered area basis after including the balcony area. The covered area for the purpose of payment of licence fee includes the exclusive balcony which is not open to sky and the same cannot be excluded. W.P.(C) No.7695/2008 Page 4 7. The admitted position is that the petitioner has not paid any licence fee after July, 1987 but has continued to use and occupy the flat. By the interim order dated 26th November, 2008, the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 30 lacs but the said amount has not been deposited. The petitioner has been dispossessed. Conduct of the petitioner and his failure to pay licence fee from August, 1987 onwards disentitles and does not justify grant of any relief. As per the statement of accounts filed by the respondent NDMC, the petitioner has arrears of more than Rs. 3 crores and 40 lacs excluding interest. The licence period had expired on 26th June, 1989. The licence was not renewed and the period extended. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition challenging and question the order passed by the Estate Officer and the learned Additional District Judge under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MARCH 03, 2010 NA