Dismissed

M a Ramzana v. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Dec 2018LPA/672/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An executive court allowed appeals by appellant landlords challenging termination orders issued to appraise unauthorized occupants occupying public premises of premises and hold that the orders are not perverse as damages were based on appellant offered and rates paid by other licensees in the premises.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.

M a Ramzana Vs India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. — Delhi HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

LPAs 671 & 672 of 2018 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'PP Act'). Initially damages @ Rs.500/per sq. ft. per month under Section 7 of the PP Act was imposed by the statutory authority but on an appeal being filed, the District Judge has reduced the same from Rs.500/- to Rs.370/- per sq. ft. per month. Even the reduction to Rs.370/- per sq. ft. per month being approved by the learned Writ Court, these appeals have been filed challenging the impugned orders of the learned Writ Court.

¶3

-?/

¶4

Even though the learned counsel argued that various licensees are paying license fee of Rs.250/- per sq. ft. per month charging Rs.350/- or Rs.370/- per sq. ft. per month from the appellants is unsustainable and discriminatory. However, we find that both, the learned Writ Court and the statutory appellate authority under Section 9 of the PP Act, namely, the District Judge have gone into this question and found that the appellants were aware of the date till which they were entitled to occupy the premises, i.e., till 3U' January, 2018 and 29'*^ February, 2018 respectively. They did not vacate the premises even thereafter and continued to be in unauthorized use and occupation of the property exposing themselves to the liability of payment of damages under Section 7 of the PP Act. Further finding is that the appellant themselves by various letters consented to pay license fee of Rs.350/- per sq. ft. per month from U' February, 2018. The damages are nothing but mesne profits and a person in wrongful possession of such property is required to pay it. The appellants having already offered the license fee @ Rs.350/- per sq. ft. per month while seeking renewal of the license were bound by the same. Further, it was found that the Central Bank of India which was also functioning in the same premises is paying a sum of

¶5

LPAs 671 & 672 of 2018 Page 2 of 3

¶6

Rs.350/- per sq. ft. per month as license fee.

¶7

Taking note of the totality of the circumstances a detailed order has been passed upholding the action of the respondents as modified by the District Judge and we see no reason to make an indulgence into the matter as the license fee determined by the District Judge and approved by the learned Writ Court are based on the appellant's own offering made and the rate being paid by certain licensees, like Central Bank of India, for the same area and concurrent findings in this regard recorded by the statutory appellate authority and the writ Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal to such an extent that interference is called for .

¶8

The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The pending applications are also disposed of.

¶9

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶10

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶11

DECEMBER 04, 2018 'anb'

¶12

¶13

LPAs 671 & 672 of 2018

¶14

^of3

M a Ramzana v. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M a Ramzana v. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajat Manchanda Vs Union Secretary, Department of Hime Affairs and Ors.

Firght for Right Welfare Society Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Gayatri Bajaj & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Gift Centre(Khushal) Vs India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Amit Sahni Vs High Court of Delhi

C J International Hotels Ltd. & Anr. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.