M.P. Mathur & Others vs D.T.C And Others

The undisputed facts are as follows.

Between 1962-63 and 1965-66, 5144 tenements were constructed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi in six colonies of the Delhi Administration, namely, Karampura, Nehru Nagar, Giri Nagar, Vishwakarma Nagar, Hari Nagar and G.T. Road under Integrated Subsidised Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers and Economically Weaker Sections of the Community, 1952 (for short, 'the Scheme'). Appellants herein are industrial workers and they were allotted service quarters in Hari Nagar and G.T. Road colonies. They have retired from service. However, they have continued to reside in these quarters till today. According to the appellants, 300 quarters were constructed by Delhi Transport Undertaking at Hari Nagar and G.T. Road under the above Scheme. In 1971 Delhi Transport Undertaking was converted into Delhi Transport Corporation (for short, 'DTC'), taking 300 tenements out of the quota of Delhi Administration. In 1978 the above Scheme was amended allowing DTC to transfer the allotted houses on ownership basis to the occupants (plaintiffs). The said Scheme was sponsored by the Government of India. According to the appellants, out of 5144 tenements, 4844 tenements were transferred by the Delhi Administration in favour of the occupants. This was done in 1979. The balance was 300 tenements belonging to DTC in the two colonies of Hari Nagar and G.T. Road which remained untransferred. DTC Workers Union protested when DTC did not take steps to transfer the 300 tenements to the occupants. They threatened to proceed on strike. On 28.10.1978 a Settlement was signed under Industrial Disputes Act between DTC and the Union of workers under which DTC was given six months time to take decision on the workers' demand for transferring of the tenements to the occupants. Before expiry of six months, DTC, by way of Resolution dated 18.4.1979, decided in principle to sell the service quarters to the occupants. The occupants were asked to fill up certain forms. They were asked to furnish certain information to DTC. This was done by the appellants. By another Resolution dated 31.8.1979 DTC approved the Scheme to sell the tenements to the occupants subject to certain conditions being satisfied by each of the occupants. Even in the Annual Administration Report, DTC stated that action has been taken to transfer ownership of 300 service quarters constructed under the above Scheme. According to the appellants, DTC took the above steps in line with the decision of the Delhi Administration dated 9.2.1979 to transfer 4844 tenements out of 5144 tenements in four colonies, namely, Karampura, Nehru Nagar, Giri Nagar, Vishwakarma Nagar in favour of their occupants and, therefore, the appellants herein were sure that in their case the decision to transfer the tenements on ownership basis would be implemented. However, on 3.12.1979 the Chairman of DTC requested the Board to reconsider its decision to sell in the light of increased replacement cost of about Rs.3 crores, particularly when DTC had huge accumulated losses. By letter dated 16.5.1980 the Government of India invited DTC to implement its decision to sell the tenements to the occupants. Ultimately, vide Resolution dated 2.3.1981 the DTC Board rescinded its decision to sell and stated that it will not implement the policy decision of the Government of India. Aggrieved by the said Resolution, the appellants herein filed Suit No.308/83 in the Delhi High Court seeking a declaration of entitlement to the transfer of these properties. The suit was decreed by the learned Single Judge on 11.9.1991. However, the appeal preferred by DTC was allowed by the impugned judgment. Hence this civil appeal.

Coming to the second contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs, the question we have to ask is: whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs could compel transfer of tenements in their favour on the basis of promissory estoppel.

We do not find any merit in the civil appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.