CHANDU LAL Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these civil revision petitions, it would be appropriate to dispose them of by a single judgment.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts pertaining to these revision petitions are as follows. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (herein called the Corporation') held an auction on 21st October, 1973, for allotment of Kiosk situated near Bus Stop, Parade Ground, opposite Red Fort, Delhi. The petitioner were the highest bidders and consequently each one of them was allotted a Kiosk. Chandu Lal's bid was for Kiosk bearing No. 1. The Corporation accepted his bid for Rs. 450.00 per month in respect of the said Kiosk and allotted the same to him as a licensee for a period of II months commencing from 1st November, 1973. His case is that in pursuance of the terms of the license he deposited the security amount equivalent to three month's fee and took the physical possession of the Kiosk on 1st January, 1974. He further contends that he had been peacefully carrying on his business in the said Kiosk in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Corporation; that on the expiry of the period of license on 30th November, 1974, he made a representation to the Commissioner of the Corporation for the extension of license period and that on the recommendation of the Commissioner for the extension of the period of the license for a full term of five years in pursuance of the renewal and extension of the license period, the Corporation accepted the license fee subsequently after 30th November, 1974. However, the petitioner alleges that on 29th May, 1975, some officials of the Corporation came at the site and threatened him to vacate the Kiosk on which he told the said officials that he had been regularly paying the license fee, as such he could not be evicted arbitrarily and in an illegal manner. It is also alleged that on the threatened action of the officials of the Corporation, nearby shopkeepers collected there and with a great difficulty the said officials were persuaded not to take law in their own hands on which the officials retreated. He, however, contends that an imminent and recurring threat at their hands at any time subsists. Describing the action of the Corporation as manifestly illegal, arbitrary, bona fide and discriminatory, the petitioner filed the suit for the grant of a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering disturbing or dispossessing him from the Kiosk. The petitioner also filed an application under Order 39, Rules I and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, praying that pending disposal of the suit the Corporation be restrained by way of ad interim injunction from interfering, disturbing or dispossessing him from the above-said Kiosk.

(3.) The Corporation in its written statement by way of preliminary objections urge that the suit is barred in view of sections 477 and 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, (hereia called 'the Act') ; that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the suit; and that the suit as framed is not maintainable. On merits the Corporation admits that the petitioner being the highest bidder was allotted the Kiosk in question for 11 months as a licensee; that on the expiry of the said period the petitioner was asked to vacate the Kiosk; that his request for the extension of the period of license for a further period of five years was rejected as it was not found possible to extend the period; that the order rejecting the prayer for extending the period was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 8th May, 1975; and that thus there was neither any renewal nor extension of the license period as alleged by the petitioner. The Corporation accordingly contends that since the license was for a period of 11 months, the petitioner was bound to vacate the Kiosk on the expiry of the said period. In the premises it is prayed that the Court had no legal jurisdiction to try the suit and that for the aforesaid reasons the suit be dismissed.