AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.B. Gupta, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner challenging order (undated), passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, vide which application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 8A & 10 of CPC (for short as ''Code''), has been dismissed.
Brief facts are that Shop No. 7, Indian Oil Bhawan, New Janpath Market, New Delhi was allotted to late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal on licence basis in the year 1970. On 8.11.1982, Sohan Lal Bansiwal being the original allottee expired, leaving behind number of legal heirs including petitioner. Respondents No. 1 to 3, filed a suit for possession, mesne profit, permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of that shop against Respondents No. 4 to 10. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8A & 10 of the Code for impleading her as one of the defendants.
It is contended by learned Counsel that petitioner is the married daughter of late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal and she being class-I legal heir, has a equitable right in the suit property and is entitled to be impleaded as a party to the suit.
Other contention is that, the trial court relied heavily on the policies of New Delhi Municipal Council when validity and applicability of such policies were not even in question nor New Delhi Municipal Council was a party to the suit and as such the same was not even required to be looked into at this stage.
In support, learned Counsel cited following judgments;
(i) Om Parkash Charaya v. Ashok Kamal Capital Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2000 VII AD (Delhi) 67;
(ii) S.S. Bakshi and Ors. v. P.M. Mathrani 2005 IV AD (Delhi) 75 and;
(iii) Harbhajan Singh and Ors. v. Malook Singh and Anr. 2000 (2) CCC 416 (P & H)
Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this Article is limited.
In Waryam Singh and Another Vs. Amarnath and Another, , the court observed;
This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in - Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee, , to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.
In light of principles laid down in the above decision, it is to be seen as to whether present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against impugned order is maintainable or not.
In Y. Duraisamy Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai, The Sanitary Inspector, Division No. 30, Circle 2, Corporation of Chennai, Sanitary Inspector''s Office, Ripon Buildings, Chennai and The Assistant Health Officer, Zone II, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai, , court observed that:
A licence is only a right to do or continue to do something which, in the absence of such right be unlawful. In general licence is only a personal privilege as such it is neither transferable or heritable. A licence is not annexed to the property in respect of which it is enjoyed nor is it a transferable or heritable right but is a right purely personal between the grantor and licencee.
It is an admitted case of the petitioner herein, as well as of the plaintiffs before the trial court that Sohan Lal Bansiwal was the licencee of shop in question. Since, Sohan Lal was a licencee, the question of inheritance of the shop in question by his legal heir does not arise, as licence is only a personal privilege and is neither transferable or heritable. Thus, no legal right vest in the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is neither a necessary nor proper party in this case.
Various judgments cited by learned Counsel for petitioner are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case.
Under these circumstances, present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed.
CM No. 14260/2010 (stay)
Dismissed.