NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL versus GANGA DEVI & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 27-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
v.
GANGA DEVI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 310 of 2015)
SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Eviction – Predecessor of the occupant-respondent no.1 was
allotted the site in question in 1998 by license deed – Shop
transferred in favour of occupant – Show cause notice issued
alleging sub-letting and unauthorized construction – Eviction order
passed ordering eviction of the allotee – Appeal dismissed –
Challenged by occupant – Writ petitions allowed – Writ appeal by
New Delhi Municipal Council – Dismissed – Held: Cut-off date for
regularization of the shops, stalls, flats was 20.10.89 as mentioned
in the Circular dated 25.07.96, relied on by occupant – Occupant
was not in possession of the stall on or before 20.10.89 – Further,
public notice dated 06.08.2001 conferring ownership rights to the
shopkeepers was in respect of the 14 markets which does not include
the market in question – It specifically stipulated that the earlier
decision of the Cabinet dtd. 20.10.89 shall cease to operate –
Therefore, the date fixed in the office order dated 25.07.96 ceased
to be effective after the Cabinet decision dated 31.08.2000 –
Moreover, the partnership deed executed by predecessor of the
occupant with the occupant was in contravention of the terms of
the license deed which prohibited subletting/induction of partner –
Such license deed was executed after the office order dated 25.07.96
– Orders passed by Division Bench and Single Bench of the High
Court set aside – Eviction order restored.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The cut-off date for regularization of the shops,
stalls, flats was 20.10.1989 as mentioned in the Circular dated
25.7.1996. It is to be noted that the occupant was not in possession
of the stall on or before 20.10.1989. Still further, the public notice
dated 6.8.2001 was in respect of the 14 markets which does not
include the market at Baba Kharag Singh Marg. The said public
notice specifically stipulates that the earlier decision of the
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 228
228
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
229
Cabinet dated 20.10.1989 shall cease to operate. Therefore, the
date fixed in the office order dated 25.7.1996 ceased to be effective
after the Cabinet decision dated 31.8.2000. There was a clear
stipulation in the license deed executed by the predecessor of
the occupant that she shall not induct any partner or sublet the
premises. But in utter violation of the terms of the license, firstly,
the partnership was executed and within two months, it was
dissolved. The act of the predecessor of the occupant and the
occupant are clearly and unequivocally in contravention of the
terms of the license deed. Such license deed was executed after
the office order dated 25.7.1996. Further, the public notice dated
6.8.2001 would not be applicable in respect of Baba Kharag Singh
Marg market. [Paras 11, 12][236-G-H; 237-A-C]
2. The rights of Government of India in administering the
markets as a lessor or licensee alone was transferred and not the
land or the building thereon. The Council was to administer the
properties as a delegate of the Union. The regularization/
restoration of allotment of shops in para 3 was in terms of the
policy of the Union and not that of Council. The relevant clause
is “the guidelines and procedure followed by Land & Development
Office and Directorate of Estates in the matter of….regularization/
restoration of allotment of shops may also be followed”. Thus, if
there is a policy of regularization or restoration of the Union, the
same may be followed by the Council. However, the policy of the
Council, if any, in respect of regularization/restoration of allotment
would not be applicable. Therefore, even if the Council has not
produced policy of regularization, it is not material to the questions
raised in the present appeal. The rights of the Council are to
administer the properties as a delegate of the Government of
India and not as an owner as there were no transfer of rights in
the markets in favour of the Council. This is evident from the fact
that the revenue generated from the transfer of markets has to
be deposited in a separate corpus of funds to be utilized only for
the purpose of development of markets and for no other purpose.
Such income would not accrue to the Council as a part of their
budget. Therefore, the markets transferred by the Government
of India to the Council have to be dealt independently a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.