Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1542 (DEL)

MAHESH PANDEY v. N. D. M. C.

2007-08-01

BADAR DURREZ AHMED

body2007
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has prayed for the setting aside of the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer dated 31. 07. 2003. However, the said order was the subject matter of appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 before the learned Additional District Judge. The appeal was disposed of by an order dated 12. 03. 2007 whereby, in substance, the Estate Officer's order dated 31. 07. 2003 was upheld. However, with regard to the computation of damages, the rate of interest was reduced from 24% to 12% p. a. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 ought to have been permitted to be impleaded in the proceedings before the Estate Officer as well as before the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioner says that the shop was handed over to the respondent No. 4 pursuant to a partnership agreement and the said handing over was notified to the concerned authorities. Accordingly, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that whatever the damages, the same need to be recovered from the respondent No. 4 who was in actual possession and not from the petitioner. In connection with this argument, the learned Additional District Judge observed as under : "admittedly, the said shop was allotted to the appellant on license basis. It is the appellant only, who is liable to pay license fee/damages in terms of the license deed entered into with the appellant, unless the said shop is transferred to someone else. The appellant has failed to place on record, either before the Estate Officer or before this court, any document to show that the said shop had been licensed/ transferred to Smt. Reena Arora. Thus, I find no force in appellant's contention that he is not liable to pay the arrears of license fees/damages. " ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to clause 12 of the original license which stands in the name of the petitioner. The said clause 12 reads as under : "12. Thus, I find no force in appellant's contention that he is not liable to pay the arrears of license fees/damages. " ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to clause 12 of the original license which stands in the name of the petitioner. The said clause 12 reads as under : "12. That the licensee during the tenure of this license shall not transfer, assign or part with the licensed premises or any part thereof permanently or temporarily to anybody else and he shall not be allowed to take any person to share the accommodation in partnership without the prior written permission of the licensor nor shall he be entitled to allow any person to occupy the licensed premises or to use any part thereof save with the prior permission in writing of the licensor. " ( 4 ) A reading of the said clause makes it abundantly clear that before a license could be transferred to any other person or possession could be parted with, prior written permission of the licensor was necessary. Admittedly, no prior written permission of the licensor has been taken in the present case. The only contention of the petitioner is that the intimation of the entering into of the partnership deed and the handing over of possession to the respondent No. 4 was sent to the concerned authority. In my view, this does not amount to prior written permission as required under the terms of the licence. As such, no interference with the order of the learned Additional District Judge is called for. This writ petition is dismissed.