A.K. Sabharwal vs NDMC and Another

Anil Kumar, J.—The Appellant has challenged the order of dismissal dated 03rd March, 2010 of his writ petition passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition bearing No. 7695 of 2008 where the Appellant had sought quashing of order dated 30th September, 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, New Delhi upholding the order dated 19th September, 1991 passed by the Estate Officer, NDMC directing the Appellant to vacate the premises No. 203, Palika Bhawan Complex, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.

While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had also observed that as per Statement of Accounts filed by the Respondent/NDMC, the Appellant has arrears of more than Rs. 3 crores and 40 lacs excluding interest. It had also been observed that the Appellant has been dispossessed and the license of the Appellant had expired on 26th June, 1989 and was not renewed, nor the period extended.

After some arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the learned Single Judge has made the observation that the Appellant has to pay arrears of more than Rs. 3 crores and 40 lacs excluding interest which fact was not admitted by the Appellant and which is not factually correct.

He further contends that the matter pertaining to the arrears of license fees and the interest, if any, payable by Appellant is already pending adjudication before the Estate Officer, NDMC. It is asserted that the observation made by learned Single Judge will prejudice his pleas and contentions taken before the Estate Officer. According to him this observation is also contrary to Statement of Accounts filed as ''Annexure R-12'' at Page No. 174 of the Paper Book.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents, Ms. Madhu Tewatia also contends that the dispute about the liability of the Appellant towards the arrears of license fees and the interest payable by the Appellant is pending adjudication before the Estate Officer, NDMC. The learned Single Judge though has observed that about Rs. 3 crores and 40 lacs is due on the basis of plea of the Respondent, however, exact liability was not determined by the learned Single Judge.

In the circumstances, it is directed that the Estate Officer will be entitled to determine independently the arrears of the license fees, other charges, if any, and interest, if any, due from the Appellant and will not be bound by the observation made by the learned Single Judge in order dated 03.03.2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 7695/2008 titled A.K. Sabharwal v. NDMC and Ors. to this effect.

With these directions, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. All the pending applications are also disposed of.