DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. K P SHANKRA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-4-43
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 13,1983

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
VERSUS
K.P.SHANKRA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VIJAY CHAND JAIN V. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
SHALLINDER KUMAR KAINTAL V. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANTI MALHOTRA VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DAYAL DAS VS. GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1985-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
TOWN SURVEYER VS. SMT. ARNAPURNA PATRA ALIAS ANUSUYA PATRO [LAWS(ORI)-1990-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. S K JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-1984-10-26] [REFERRED]
HAKIKAT RAI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2003-10-99] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.N.A.ggarwal, J. - (1.)This judgment shall also dispose of Criminal -Appeal Nos. 131/76, 132/76, 263/76, 264/76, 265./76 and 266/76 since they involve common questions of fact and law.
(2.)The respondent K.P. Shankara is the owner of the building bearing No. 11, Babar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi. On 17th February 1973 the field staff of the Delhi Development Authority reported that the owner of premises bearing No. 11 Babar Lane was using the said building in contravention of the Master Plan of Delhi. After obtaining sanction for the proiccution on 1st June 1973, the Secretary, Delhi Development Authority filed a complaint under Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act against the respondent. Thallegation in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1976 is that the respondent had let out one room on the first floor, 11 Babar Lane New Delhi to M/s. Payen & Go. who were using the said room as an office which is in contravention of the Master Plan. The allegation in the other complaints is similar, only the names of the tenants arc different.
(3.)The respondent in his examination at the trial stated that he had filed a suit against M/s. New Delhi Traders Association (Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1976) for their eviction and the said suit is pending in the court of Shri R. Dayal. Regarding Messrs Payen & Co. (Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1976) the respondent stated that the said tenant was using the demised premises only for residential purpose. Regarding the tenant Messrs. Tag India (Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1976) the respondent stated that he had served a notice on Mrs. Poorvi Pandey Executive Director for vacating the premises and further had also filed a suit for eviction. Regarding Travel Advisers (Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1976) the respondent stated that they had vacated the building soon after the receipt of notice from the Delhi Development Authority. Regarding the tenant Messrs. Datta Ram Advertising Private Limited (Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 1976) the respondent stated that on receipt of the notice from the Delhi Development Authority he gave notice to the tenant who had since vacated the premises. Regarding the tenant M/s. Oriental Travel Service (Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 1976) the respondent stated that he had given the Barsati floor to the said tenant in 1972 for office-cum-residence and that the dominant purpose was residence. Regarding the Monitoring Services (Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 1976) the respondent stated that they vacated the premises after the notice from the Delhi Development Authority.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.