ANIL SONDHI vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

- BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant purchased Shop No. 3 Pocket ''C Vasant Kunj in an auction in Sept. 86. A newspaper vendor platform was also auctioned by the DDA and it was purchased by Mr. Hansraj Bhutani. The platform is situated in front of the shop of the complainant. In 1990, it is alleged, that the owner of the platform installed shutters in the front and back of the platform and laid ceiling thereon; thus converted the platform into a shop. The alleged construction, it is pleaded, has obstructed the view of the complainant''s shop, on account of which he has suffered loss of Rs. 5 lacs. It is further pleaded that the DDA did not take any action against the said shopkeeper. Consequently he filed the present complaint for recovery of damages and for direction that the construction be demolished by DDA.

THE complaint is contested by the respondent. THEy have admitted that shop No. 3 was purchased by the complainant, that the platform was situated in front of his shop and that construction has been made on the platform. However, it is pleaded that the construction has been made without the prior permission of the DDA and consequently show cause notice was issued. THEreafter, notice to remove the unauthorised addition and alteration was given to Sh. Bhutani but instead of removing the construction on the platform he filed a suit for injunction. He also obtained a stay order from the Court of Sh. A.S. Yadav but that was later on, withdrawn. In the circumstances it is alleged that they cannot, be blamed and are not liable to pay any compensation. The first question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is a ''consumer''qua DDA for claiming direction that they should get the structure on the platform removed. The word ''consumer'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) which inter-alia says that a consumer means any person who hires or avails of any service for consideration. In the present case, in my opinion, it cannot be said that any service was hired by the complainant from the DDA for removal of structure. The prayer of the complainant for directing the DDA to demolish the structure of third person cannot therefore be granted u/Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also relevant to mention that the purchaser of the platform is not a party to the present proceedings.

The second question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to any damages from the DDA. As it has already been observed that the complainant is not a consumer qua DDA, therefore, the question of granting damages to him against DDA does not arise.

BEFORE parting with the order it may, however, be observed that if some constructions are unauthorisedly raised by a citizen without the permission of the DDA, it should take action against him. But it is regrettable that no action has been taken against the purchaser by the DDA in this case though the injunction ordei issued by the Court had already been vacated. After the vacation of the injunction order it was appropriate for the DDA to proceed according to law against the purchaser. The Vice-Chairman, should get the matter examined and provide relief to the complainant. It may also be observed that an affidavit was filed by Sh. M.S. Dhankar, Director (CL) for DDA, even without going through the same, which amounts to dereliction, of duty. This fact may also be brought to the notice of the Vice-Chairman. For the aforesaid reasons I dismiss the complaint subject to the observations made above. No order as to costs. Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member-We have gone through the order pronounced by R.N. Mittal J. We agree with the order but want to make the following observations:-

IF a lessee raises unauthorised construction on a platform given to him by the respondent/DDA for a specific use as laid down under the terms and conditions of ''Perpetua'' Lease Hold Rights'' executed between the lessee and the lessor/DDA which executes the Lease Deed on behalf of the President of India (the highest authority of the land) it is obligatory on the part of DDA to ensure compliance of such terms and conditions. The general purpose clauses of the ''Perpetual Lease Hold Rights'' (Annexure G) as detailed below are specific in this behalf:- "4. Lease Deed and other Conditions of Lease: i) xxx xxx xxx ii) xxx xxx xxx iii) The allottee/lessee of the shop will have to start business in the shop within a period of 3 months from the date of offer of handing over of possession of the shop. iv) xxx xxx xxx v) xxx xxx xxx vi) xxx xxx xxx vii) xxx xxx xxx viii) That the allottee shall not cause or permit to be caused any damage to the shop including jeant walls. Under no circumstance the allottee shall make any additions or alterations to the existing structure s nor shall any structure would be allowed to be constructed on the roof of the shop. ix) xxx xxx xxx x) xx xxx xxx xi) xxx xxx xxx xii) That the allottee shall not do anything in or outside the shop which may be nuisance or annoyance to the neighbour or to the passerby. xiii) xxx xxx xxx xiv) xxx xxx xxx xv) xxx xxx xxx xvi) IF the lease of the shop is obtained by misrepresentation, mis-statement or fraud or if, there is any breach of the conditions herein stated, lease will'' be forfeited and the possession of the shop will be taken over by the Delhi Development Authority/Lessor and the allottee will not be entitled to claim any compensation thereof. xvii) xxx xxx xxx xviii) xxx xxx xxx xix)i) xxx xxx xxx ii) No changes/alterations/additions shall be made without prior approval of the DDA. Shutters shall not be permitted to be shifted from the present place in any circumstances."

In view of the above specific provisions the DDA as a Lessor should have taken prompt action and not allowed matters to drag on to become perpetuity. In any case after the vacation of the injunction order of the Court the DDA should have taken immediate action to ensure compliance of its Orders, Rules and Regulations. Such lapses, in our view, are not only unwarranted but are bound to lower the image of the DDA in the eyes of the public to which it is accountable. It is also a case where one Lessee who paid a small sum to DDA has been favoured by overlooking his act of constructing a pucca shop (Annexure E) in front of the complainants shop who paid a substantial price for purchasing a fully constructed shop. In doing so he has not only caused deliberate obstruction to the business of the complainant but has lowered the value of the complainant''s property while increasing the value of his property manifold. Obviously this could not happen without the connivance of some officials in DDA.

IN our view, DDA, as a statutory body, is armed with adequate powers to carry out its responsibilities including re entry within the frame-work of Rules and Regulations/Conditions of Lease Deed. The DDA Vice-Chairman should get the matter examined to provide relief to the complainant and also to determine the extent of dereliction of duty on the part of concerned officials. It may also be observed that an affidavit was filed by Shri H.S. Dhankar, Director (CL) for DDA, even without going through the same which is a highly serious matter. The officer swearing the affidavit and the officer signing the same are also not the same person. This fact should also be brought to the notice of the Vice-Chairman, DDA.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the complaint subject to the observations made above. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.