M/S G. S. Bhamra And Sons vs Delhi State Industrial And Infrastructural Development Corporation Ltd

Navin Chawla, J

This petition has been filed praying for inter-alia grant of possession of the industrial plot ad-measuring 200 sq. mtr. in Sector-5, Pocket-N, No.26,

Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi allotted to the petitioner, which is a partnership firm duly registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 by the respondent.

The said allotment was made in the name of the partnership firm, which was earlier constituted by four partners namely, Mr.Gurbax Singh,

Mr.Pritam Singh, Mr.Kulwant Singh and Mrs.Amarjeet Kaur. It is the case of the petitioner that Mr.Gurbax Singh retired from the partnership firm

and thereafter expired on 04.02.2003, that is, before the allotment of the industrial plot. It is further the case of the petitioner that the other legal heirs

of the late Mr. Gurbax Singh executed a Deed of Relinquishment dated 06.12.2007 in favour of Mr.Pritam Singh and Mr.Kulwant Singh inter-alia with

respect to the plot allotted by the respondent in favour of the partnership firm. The said Deed of Relinquishment was duly registered with the office of

the Sub-Registrar of Documents on 06.12.2007.

It is further the case of the petitioner that Mrs. Amarjeet Kaur retired from the partnership firm and also executed a Relinquishment Deed duly

registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar of Documents, thereby relinquishing her share in the plot allotted in favour of Mr.Pritam Singh and

Mr.Kulwant Singh, the two remaining partners in the partnership firm.

The petitioner further asserts that the respondent has been raising demands for various documents from the petitioner from time to time, which have

been duly complied with by the petitioner, however, the possession of the plot in question has not been handed over to the petitioner yet.

The learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on a communication dated 15.10.2015, submits that there were certain discrepancies found

in the documents submitted by the petitioner inasmuch as the Partnership Deed which was stated to be executed on 31.03.2008, was registered on the

stamp paper which was purportedly purchased on 05.04.2008. Similarly, though Mrs. Amarjeet Kaur was stated to have retired from the partnership

firm on 31.03.2008, it was found that she had continued to act as a partner even thereafter.

In my view, these objections are merely technical in nature. It is not the case of the respondent that any other person has raised a claim over the

plot in question. Nor is it the case of the respondent that same third parties have been inducted into the partnership. It is the case of the petitioner that

the petitioner has submitted the registered Relinquishment Deed executed by the legal heirs of the deceased partner Mr. Gurbax Singh as also from

the retiring partner Mrs.Amarjeet Kaur with the respondent. The petitioner further claims that the partnership deed has been duly registered and all

changes in the constitution thereof have been duly incorporated, in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Copies of these

documents have also been submitted to the respondent. It is further stated that the Partnership Agreement specifically provided that the same shall not

be dissolved on account of death or retirement of any partner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the one hand the respondent has not handed over the possession of the plot in question

to the petitioner, and on the other hand is demanding “watch & ward chargesâ€​ and “late construction chargesâ€​ from the petitioner.

I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the possession of the plot has not been handed over to the

petitioner in spite of the petitioner submitting all required documents to the respondent. The petitioner in such circumstances cannot be held amiss of

making construction of the plot (without possession). Such demands clearly reflect non-application of the mind by the respondent.

In view of the above, the respondent is directed to clearly spell out any documents that are still required from the petitioner to be submitted for the

possession of the plot in question to be handed over to the petitioner. Such communication must be given to the petitioner within a period of three

weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order.

The respondent within the same time-frame shall also communicate if there are any additional charges to be paid by the petitioner. Such demand

shall, however, not be on account of alleged delay in construction on part of the petitioner.

On petitioner complying with such requisitions, the possession of the plot in question shall be handed over to the petitioner, positively within a period

of four weeks from the date the petitioner complies with the same.

The petition is allowed in the above terms, with no order as to cost.