LexNEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE versus KALU RAM & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- .. • NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE 87 v. KALU RAM & ANR. April 20. 1976 [A. C. GUPTA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Public Premises (EvictUna of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, S. 7, whtt· her creates new right or merely provides special procedure, whether subject to limitation. fn 1950, the appellant allotted small pre-fabricated stalls to several dis- placed persons including the respondent, at the Iicen~ fee of rupee thirty payable per month .. Later, the~ allottees applied for a fixation of standard rent but ultimately lost in the Punjab High Court at Delhi. MP.anwhile, the reapondent fell in arrears in paying the licence fee. In Decemb~r. 1960, the appellant demanded from him the entire amount in arrears from May 1950 to April 1957 but he failed ro pay. In September 1961, the Estate Officer ordered tho respondent under section 7 ( 1) of the Act, to pay the sum, overruling his objection that the claim was barred by limitation. The respondent's appeal to the Additional District Judge was rejected, but the Punjab High Court at Delhi a11owed bis writ petition on the ground that section 7 could not be availed in case of time barred claims. The appellant contended before this Court that the Limitation Act only barred the remedy by way of suit and did not extinguish the right which could still be exercised through section 7 of the Act. Section 7 did not put a time limit for taking action under it, and was, therefore, not subject to the limitation prescribed for a suit to recover the amount. Dismissing the appeal, the Court, HELD : Section 7 only provides a special procedure for the realisation of rent in arrears and does not constitute a source or foundation of a right to da:m a debt otherwise time-barred. The word "payable" in Section 7 in the context in which it occurs, means "legally recoverable". [90 B & D] Hans Raj Gupta and other3 v. Ofiicial Liquidator of the Dehradun Mrissoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. 60 I.A. 13, followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 988 of 1968 . (From the Judgment and order dated the 8-4-1965 of th~ Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench Delhi-now the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ No. 228---G of 1962). A B c D E F Hardyal Hardy, B. P. Maheshwari, Suresh Sethi and Bikaramfit Nayar; for the appellant. G A. K. Sen, D. P. Bhandare, Mrs. Laxmi Arvind Mathur and S. S. Khanduja; for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, J.-Respondent Kalu Ram was pavement vendor in Connaught place, New Delhi. In 1950 the appellant. New Delhi Municipal Committee, provided a number of displaced persons with small pre-fabricated stalls to enable them to do their business. Kalu H A B c D E F G H SS SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] SUPPLEMENTARY Ram who was also a displaced person was allotted one such stall on Irwm Road. Rupees thirty was the licencee fee payable per month by the allottees of these Slalls. Later, the allottees, including the respondent, applied to the Rent Controller for reducing the rent. It is not necessary to refer to the various proceedings arising from these applications for fixacion of standard rent which were ultuna,ely dismissed by the Circuit Bench ol the Punjab High Court at Delhi as not maintainable. In the meantime, many of the allottees fell in arrears in paying the licence fees. So far as the respondent is concerned, the appellant took no steps to recover the dues till December 1960 when it demand- ed the entire amount in arrears from May 1950 to April 1957, The respondent not having paid, the appellant asked the Estate Officer, ap- pointed under section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of U nautho- rised Occupants) Act, 1958, to take steps to recover the amount in arrears under section 7 of that Act. The Estate Officer, who is the second respondent herein, made an order on September 28, 1961 Ul).der section 7 ( 1) of the Act asking the respondent to pay the sum overruling his objection that the claim was barred by limitation. The respondent's appeal to the Additional District Judge from the Estate Officer's order was disallowed. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi challenging the order against him. One of the grounds of challenge was that section 7 could not be resorted to for recovery of the sum as the claim was time-barred. The High Court accepted the conten- tion a!ild allowed t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.