( 1 ). Having seen Letter No. 17, the site plan 17a as well as having considered the reply affidavit of the 4 kiosk allottees and having heard learned counsel for the Gurdwara committee we find that the interest of justice requires that the back wall of the 5 kiosks on the Church Road side should not utilise compound wall of Gurdwara as their back wall. A separate wall should be put up by ndmc inside the 5 kiosks to separate the shops from the wall of the Gurdwara. It will be open to the Gurdwara Committee to raise the compound wall of the Gurdwara so that there may not be any intrusion from the roof of the kiosks. On account of this exercise to the extent floor space of kiosks is reduced, the license fee to be charged from the occupants shall be reduced appropriately. Letter No. 17 is disposed of accordingly. Letter No. 26 ( 2 ). Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that Shri Chaturvedi made a detailed enquiry of facts and found that one shri Kanwar Pal, whose claim was rejected by the Thareja Committee, seems to be interested in occupying the site in question and wants to take benefit of name tag of ramwati, wife of Moorari Lal who is missing. Roshan lal, her son also has admitted that since last 10 years he is staying with Kanwar pal and is engaged in this business and he has not made any investment in the business. Therefore, it must be held that this site cannot be allotted either to Ramwati or to Roshan lal nor can it be allowed to be used by kanwar Pal. ( 3 ). Ordered accordingly. ( 4 ). It is already disposed of by order dated 29/04/1999. ( 5 ). Out of the conditions imposed on the teh Bazari squatters who are allotted Teh bazari sites as seen from Annexure-B, condition Nos. 1,2, 5 and 6 are brought in challenge by Mr. Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicants. Those conditions are as follows: "1. Tehbazari permission shall be purely temporary and on month to month basis. 2. That the Tehbazari permission shall be personal to the grantee and it shall not be shared or transferred to anyone in any manner whatsoever. 5. No covering/tarpaulin/momjama/ structure will be allowed at the permitted site. 6. Those conditions are as follows: "1. Tehbazari permission shall be purely temporary and on month to month basis. 2. That the Tehbazari permission shall be personal to the grantee and it shall not be shared or transferred to anyone in any manner whatsoever. 5. No covering/tarpaulin/momjama/ structure will be allowed at the permitted site. 6. The permission for carrying out non- licensable trade shall be from sun-rise to sun-set only. NDMC will be within its right to lift/remove the goods if found at the site beyond the permitted hours. The allottee will carry out the trade mentioned in the allotment letter issued by the chaturvedi Committee and will invariably apply for change of trade each time he/she desires to change. " ( 6 ). So far as condition No. 1 is concerned, his apprehension is misconceived. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is clarified that the allotment of regular tehbazari site has to continue on month to month basis. ( 7 ). So far as condition No. 2 is concerned, of course prohibition is against the transfer effected by the tehbazari allottees and cannot cover the succession of tehbazari occupancy permission to the legal heirs on the demise of the concerned tehbazari holders. ( 8 ). So far as condition No. 5 is concerned, mr. Kashyap, learned counsel heavily relied upon the decision of this court in the case of gainda Ram and Ors. v. M. C. D. Town Hall and ors. reported in 1993 3 SCC 178 and submitted that Tarpaulin covers are permitted for tehbazari holders. It is of course true that in paragraph 2 of the judgment it has been observed as under: "we may also clarify that temporary 348 tarpaulin covers/umbrellas would not fall within the expression covered tehbazari because these would be necessary to combat the vaagaries of nature. They will, however, be liable to be evicted if under this pretext they try to put up a semi-permanent, cover over the area on which they are permitted to squat. By way of abundant caution and to avoid harassment it would be desirable for them to put up only a temporary cover to beat the sun or the rain and remove it when they leave the place after business hours. " ( 9 ). By way of abundant caution and to avoid harassment it would be desirable for them to put up only a temporary cover to beat the sun or the rain and remove it when they leave the place after business hours. " ( 9 ). Now, it is to be kept in view that these observations are with reference to tehbazari holders in M. C. D. areas and cannot by themselves apply to N. D. M. C. areas. ( 10 ). So far as N. D. M. C. is concerned, learned counsel for the N. D. M. C. submitted that appropriate size of coloured umbrellas can be utilised by the tehbazari holders and this would meet their requirement and would enhance the get up of the surrounding areas. These coloured umbrellas of appropriate size which can be utilised by tehbazari holders would obviously be removable at the end of the day and if such umbrellas are used condition No. 5 cannot be said to have been violated. We direct accordingly. ( 11 ). So far as condition No. 6 is concerned, according to Mr. Kashyap, the timing, sunrise to sunset as per resolution No. 28 of the n. D. M. C. would be synonymous with the marketing timings. Mr. Chaturvedi responded by submitting that the nomenclature of sunrise to sunset is utilised following the decision of this court dated 4/2/1998. Hence, Mr. Kashyaps suggestion cannot be accepted. ( 12 ). So far as the applicant No. 12, Pradeep kumar is concerned, his grievance was voiced by Mr. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel. He submitted that the applicant may be permitted to squat at the same place where he is squatting. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the N. D. M. C. in reply submitted that site No. 113 at which the applicant claims to retain his occupancy was not one of the sites suggested by Mr. Pradeep Kumar and therefore, he has been given his second choice at site No. 101. Consequently, the grievance of applicant No. 12 cannot survive any further. ( 13 ). So far as applicant No. 3, Pradeep kumar Barua is concerned the grievance voiced by him was to give him alternate site. In view of our earlier judgment dated 4/2/199898, whatever is allotted by Shri Chaturvedi cannot be made subject matter of any further appeal or revision. Hence, his grievance cannot be countenanced. ( 14 ). ( 13 ). So far as applicant No. 3, Pradeep kumar Barua is concerned the grievance voiced by him was to give him alternate site. In view of our earlier judgment dated 4/2/199898, whatever is allotted by Shri Chaturvedi cannot be made subject matter of any further appeal or revision. Hence, his grievance cannot be countenanced. ( 14 ). So far as applicant Nos. 4 and 6, P. Selvathural and Amin Chand Gupta are concerned, their grievances have already been settled while deciding letter No. 17. ( 15 ). So far as the applicant No. 15, Shri umesh is concerned, his request for squatting near Gali No. 3, Safdarjung Hospital, can be considered and allowed by the N. D. M. C. provided applicant applies within one week from today. ( 16 ). So far as the grievance of applicant no. 7, Dinesh Singh is concerned, identical grievance was dismissed by us. Hence it is generally observed that the grievance made by the remaining applicants who want to challenge Thareja Committee recommendations cannot be entertained in view of our earlier judgment dated 4/2/1998. ( 17 ). I. A. No. 186 is disposed of accordingly. ( 18 ). Having heard Ms. Rani Chhabra, learned counsel for the applicant-Sindar Lal, as well as Shri Chaturvedi, we deem it fit to direct N. D. M. C. to allot tehbazari site to the applicant, Sundar Lal as per his third option namely Palika Parking near Palika Bazar Gate no. 3, at Site No. 142. It will abide by the final recommendation of Shri Chaturvedi. ( 19 ). I. A. is disposed of. ( 20 ). In view of our earlier order dated 4/ 2/1998, this I. A. does not survive and hence is dismissed. ( 21 ). Allotment of site which was already made out of the options suggested by the applicant, cannot be changed in the present application in view of our earlier order dated 4/2/1998. So far as the grievance regarding change of trade is concerned, the applicant may apply if he has not already applied to the N. D. M. C. for such change and that application would be considered according to the Rules and Regulations. I. A. is disposed of. ( 22 ). The I. A. is dismissed. ( 23 ). These are hardship cases. The recommendations of Thareja Committee cannot be found fault with. Hence, I. As. are disposed of. I. A. is disposed of. ( 22 ). The I. A. is dismissed. ( 23 ). These are hardship cases. The recommendations of Thareja Committee cannot be found fault with. Hence, I. As. are disposed of. ( 24 ). All I. As. in respect of N. D. M. C. are disposed of today. No further applications in connection with N. D. M. C. will be entertained henceforth. The recommendations of Shri chaturvedi in all these cases regarding n. D. M. C. are treated to be final and shall be acted upon and implemented by N. D. M. C. ( 25 ). Before we part with this matter, we put on record our appreciation of the unenviable task undertaken by Shri chaturvedi. We thank him for the assistance rendered by him. We extend his term upto 15/09/1999.