Chandro Devi & Etc. vs Union Of India .

4. The original writ petitioners were rehabilitated by allocating them shops in those colonies where defence personnel reside. These colonies were being managed by the Station Commander. In Delhi such colonies are located at S.P. Marg, Delhi Cantt., Arjun Vihar, Dhaula Kuan, Shankar Vihar etc. It is not disputed that as per the lease deed(s) entered between the writ petitioners and the Station Commander, the leases were granted to the petitioners only for a period of 11 months, but there was a clause in the lease deed that it could be renewed. On 13th April, 2007 a 3 policy was introduced, which provided that the lease should not be extended beyond 5 years under any circumstances. However, the persons whose leases were cancelled after 5 years could apply for grant of fresh lease after 3 years. The leases of the leaseholders were cancelled since they had held the shops on lease for more than 5 years.

5. The petitioners challenged non-renewal of their leases and claimed that they were entitled to renewal thereof. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. The letter patent appeals filed by the lessees including the appellant herein were dismissed by the Division Bench. Some of the original writ petitioners filed special leave petitions before this Court, which were dismissed. However, the petitioners, who had approached this Court, were granted time to vacate the premises up to 30th November, 2011 on their filing usual undertaking in this regard. Some of the writ petitioners like Chandro Devi, the present appellant, did not approach this Court. After the decision by this Court, one set of review petition(s) was filed by the persons, who had approached this Court and another review petition was filed by Chandro Devi, who had not approached this Court. The 4 review petitions were time barred but the delay was condoned. These review petitions were dismissed leading to the filing of a number of special leave petitions and one contempt petition.

3. All other terms and conditions of Government letter No. 11026/5/2001-D(Lands) dated 04-1-2001 will remain unchanged. The 8 amendments as at 2(v) above will be applicable from 01-4-2005 or from the date when the Guidelines/Rules as in 2(vi) above are framed, whichever is later.”

13. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench and also by this Court though in a petition filed by some other petitioner. On going through the SOPs of 2001 and 2007, we do not find that the appellant had any vested right to continue in possession even after 5 years. Even, as per the SOP of 2001, the Station Commander was to renew lease from year to year and there was no inherent right to continue as a lessee in perpetuity. These leases have been determined in a non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary manner. We, therefore, find no merit in 13 this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11361 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 33397 OF 2011)

14. Leave granted.

15. In addition to the reasons given hereinabove, this appeal is also liable to be dismissed and is dismissed, because of the following two additional reasons:

(ii) That the appellants had approached this Court and their special leave petition was dismissed by this Court on 04.02.2011. However, the appellants were granted time till 30th November, 2011 to vacate the premises on their furnishing undertaking. They availed of the benefit granted 14 to them and now they cannot be permitted to raise fresh grounds in this appeal.

16. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.