W.P.(C) 9277/2009 Page 1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P(C) 9277/2009 Judgment delivered on: 26.07.2010 PANKAJ KOCHHAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sushil K.Pandey, Advocate. Versus DDA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR, 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral: 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks W.P.(C) 9277/2009 Page 2 of 6 quashing/setting aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 21.08.2007 passed by the Appellate Court thereby upholding the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to explain the locus of the petitioner to challenge the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer in respect of Stall No.7, Block-M, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the Stall in question was allotted by the respondent/DDA in favour of Smt.Vimla Rani and Shri Ankit Kumar being the auction-purchasers in the auction held on 13.05.1983. It is further not in dispute that the said auction-purchasers had substantially and materially changed the status of the said Stall by raising side walls; by fixing shutters and also by joining two Stalls i.e. Stalls No.7 and 8. 3. Notice dated 20.02.1990 was served on the said allottees by the respondent/DDA thereby calling upon them to show cause as to why under the terms and conditions of the allotment action of cancellation may not be taken against them. Another notice dated 19.05.1992 was also issued to the W.P.(C) 9277/2009 Page 3 of 6 said allottees being the final notice calling upon them to remedy the breaches and on failure to do so cancellation of the allotment with the forfeiture of the earnest money shall follow. Yet another notice dated 26.08.1992 was issued to the said allottees and ultimately allotment of the said Stall was cancelled by the competent authority vide orders dated 12.05.1994. It is also not in dispute that after cancellation of the said allotment, proceedings for eviction of the allottees were initiated under the Public Premises Act. Show cause notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act was served upon the said allottees, who did not respond to the same. Vide orders dated 10.05.2001, ex parte order was passed by the Estate Officer against them. The said order was not challenged by the said allottees, but by the present petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The order of the Estate Officer was challenged on the ground that no notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Act was issued to the occupant i.e. the present petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back by the Appellate Court to the Estate Officer with the direction W.P.(C) 9277/2009 Page 4 of 6 to both the parties to appear before the Estate Officer. Fresh notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act was served on the petitioner and thereafter proceedings commenced again before the Estate Officer who passed the eviction order dated 24.03.2003. The said order of the Estate Officer was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court and vide orders dated 21.08.2007, the learned Appellate Court did not find any infirmity in the order of the Estate Officer. 4. The ground of challenge to assail the eviction order as well as the order of the Appellate Court taken by the petitioner is that for carrying out any addition or alteration in the structure of the allotted stall, proceedings under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act could not be initiated as the relevant provision under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971 could be Section 5 (A) of the said Act. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties at considerable length and given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments put forth by them. W.P.(C) 9277/2009 Page 5 of 6 6. It is the admitted case of the parties that the lease of the said stall was never transferred in favour of the petitioner and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has illegally purchased the said Stall No.7 from the original allottees i.e. Smt.Vimla Rani and Shri Ankit Kumar, who had already suffered an eviction order pursuant to the said violation made by them in breach of the terms & conditions of the lease. 7. Before the Appellate Court, the petitioner raised a plea that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to him before passing the said eviction order. The said plea of the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Court after finding from the record of the Estate Officer that due opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner has also not disputed the fact that material additions and alterations were carried out by the original allottees and at no stage they were remedied despite various show cause notices issued by the respondent/DDA. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the original lease of the allottees was cancelled by the DDA and an eviction order against the original allottees already W.P.(C) 9277/2009 Page 6 of 6 stood in existence when the petitioner had purchased the said Stall No.7. In fact, as per the petitioner himself, he had purchased the said Stall No.7 from its original allottees. Clearly, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings of the Estate Officer or the Appellate Court. The petitioner had purchased the said stall at his own peril as the same was not only cancelled by the DDA but an eviction order already stood passed by the Estate Officer in respect of the same. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that he is entitled for the transfer of the said stall in his favour even after the cancellation and passing of the eviction order. 8. I find no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. KAILASH GAMBHIR, J JULY 26, 2010 dc