Order 18

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: THE COURT OF SH. VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLND01-005292-2022
PPA No.10/2022
New Delhi Municipal Council
Palika Kendra,
New Delhi-110 001 ...Appellant
Versus
1) Habibul Rehman
S/o. Late Sh. Izzat Ullash Rehman,
R/o. Muslim League Officer Building,
Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006
Also at :
Shop No. 136, Palika Bazar,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 …Respondent No.1
2) Smt. Rita Longani
Legal Heir of Late Sh. Hans Raj being wife.
R/o. H. No. C-40, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi-110028
Also at :
Shop No. 136, Palika Bazar,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 …Respondent No.2
Date of institution : 10.06.2022
Arguments heard on : 28.05.2024
Date of pronouncement : 18.07.2024
Appearances:
Sh. Nilesh Sawhney, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/NDMC.
Sh. Diwakar Singh, Sh. Arjun Malhotra and Sh. Jagdeep Vats,
Ld. Counsels for respondent No.2.
ORDER
1. Appellant has preferred the Appeal under Section 9 of
PPA No.10/2022
NDMC Vs. Habibul Rehman and Anr.
	Page 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,
1971, as amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as
the “PP Act”), against impugned order dated 22.09.2021 passed
by Sh. R.P. Gupta, Ld. Estate Officer, Palika Kendra, New Delhi
in case bearing No.18/37/04/E.O. titled as
N.D.M.C. Vs. Habibul
Rehman & Anr., whereby the application seeking eviction of the
respondents from Shop No. 136, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001 has been dismissed.
2. Notice of the Appeal was issued to the respondents,
who appeared and filed reply to the Appeal on 27.03.2023.
Alongwith the Appeal, the appellant has also moved an
application U/s.9(2) of the PP Act read with Section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of ten days in filing
the present Appeal, which is taken up first. Respondent No.2 has
filed reply to the said application and contested the same.
3. It is averred in the application that the appellant could
not file the present Appeal within the stipulated limitation period
till 29.05.2022 in view of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SMW(C)3/2020 apart
from other factors. As the impugned order was received by the
office of the appellant on 24.09.2021 and on 30.09.2021 a note
was prepared seeking approval for filing an Appeal. Thereafter,
on 08.10.2021, this matter was marked to Sh. Aditya Vikram
Singh, Ld. Assistant Standing Counsel of NDMC by Law
Department of the appellant/NDMC. However, on 20.01.2022,
Ld. Assistant Standing Counsel expressed his inability to file the
Appeal having been only appointed to represent the appellant
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Ld. Estate Officers.
On 24.01.2022, the Law Department of the appellant
was requested to appoint some other Advocate for filing the
PPA No.10/2022
NDMC Vs. Habibul Rehman and Anr.
	Page 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
present Appeal and on 27.01.2022, the matter was marked to Sh.
Nilesh Sawhney, Advocate, the counsel for NDMC, herein.
Thereafter, on 02.02.2022, a soft copy of the unit file was sent by
the Section Officer concerned and on 07.02.2022, Ld. Counsel
informed the department concerned that since the file consists
more than 1200 pages, so he needed assistance. Thus, a meeting
with the dealing assistant is required to be convened for
providing record from the office of the Estate Officer and for
general assistance. Thereafter, on 23.02.2022, copy of the
records was provided to Ld. Counsel. In the first week of March,
2022, Ld. Counsel requested to provide the original unit file,
however, it could not be provided being not traceable. In the first
week of May, 2022, the original unit file was found in record
room of the appellant and was sent to Ld. Counsel. Since, the
unit file and record was running into 1500 pages and Ld. Counsel
had sought assistance of the dealing assistant, however, the same
could not be arranged as the concerned official was on leave
between 09.05.2022 to 17.05.2022. That’s how the impediments
were there and prevented the filing of the Appeal which was
finally filed on 09.06.2022. It is, accordingly, prayed that in the
interest of justice, the delay which in fact is of ten days in filing
the present Appeal, may be condoned as the same is neither
intentional nor deliberate but because of the above mentioned
circumstances.
4. The main ground for delay in filing the present Appeal
taken by the appellant is the so called erratic movement of the
file due to administrative reasons. The delay is not to be used to
deprive a litigant from availing the legal rights. The law on the
subject is to be interpreted liberally, but there should be some
plausible explanation from the side of the person/party who is
PPA No.10/2022
NDMC Vs. Habibul Rehman and Anr.
	Page 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
seeking indulgence of the Court in condoning the delay. It
should not be taken as a matter of right by any party to the
proceedings. However, the bonafide delay should not be used as
a road block for a litigant. The delay, in view of genuine and
bonafide reason, should be condoned.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has sought to place
on record documents depicting the movement of file and return
of the same from the office of the Sh. Aditya Vikram Singh,
Advocate. The said documents have been filed today on
04.06.2024 and copy furnished.
6. The documents i.e. copy of the file notings, which was
moving from one Officer to the other under digital signatures,
filed along with copy of the email from Sh. Aditya Vikram
Singh, Advocate, reflect that the file indeed was traveling from
here and there since October, 2021 to 20.01.2022. As pointed
out, the email dated 20.01.2022 reflect that it was primarily Sh.
Aditya Vikram Singh, Advocate, who took months to come to
the conclusion that he has been appointed as Assistant Standing
Counsel for High Court and for the Estate Officer and not for the
District Court and that is why he suggested that the file may be
sent to Sh. Nilesh Sawhney, Advocate, i.e. counsel who has filed
the Appeal before this court. The events, thereafter, have been
mentioned by Sh. Nilesh Sawhney, Advocate, in his application
as to how the things got further delayed because of the
voluminous record and the absence of the Dealing Assistant, as
assistance of Dealing Assistant was required by him.
7. It is submitted that the delay was not deliberate or
intentional and in any case, the delay was detrimental to the
cause of the appellant so there cannot be any reason otherwise to
delay the filing of the Appeal. It is further submitted that these
PPA No.10/2022
NDMC Vs. Habibul Rehman and Anr.
	Page 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
kind of things happen in Government organizations and,
therefore, a lenient view may be taken and the delay in filing of
the Appeal may be condoned.
8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submitted that statute does not make any difference between an
individual and an organization. If the delay is there then the
person who is responsible for it should bear the brunt. The
appellant cannot hide itself behind the shadow of Government
organization and, therefore, the delay is not required to be
condoned.
9. The law of limitation is enacted with a view to give
finality to the disputes as time has its own limitations in the life
of the individuals and for that matter, even the life of the
individual is limited. Therefore, the law of limitation has been
enacted so that people may take remedies if they actually want
to, at the earliest and in any case, within the period of limitation.
On the other hand, provisions like Section 5 of the Limitation
Act are also there in the statute which takes into account the
limitations of the human memory, mind and efforts. Things are
not in the control of human beings and there may be instances
where one is prevented from strictly adhering to a timeline and in
case, where justifiable reasons are there, then the doctrine of
condonation of delay due to sufficient cause has been provided to
be used by the courts.
10. In a recent decision titled as
Sheo Raj Singh
(deceased) through LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Civil
Appeal No. 5867/2015 decided on 09.10.2023, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the whole
gamut of the authorities on the subject,
Balwant Singh (Dead) v.
Jagdish Singh & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 685, University of Delhi v.
PPA No.10/2022
NDMC Vs. Habibul Rehman and Anr.
	Page 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
Union of India & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 745, Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2
SCC 107, State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC
752, Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 363, Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living
Media India Limited & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563, Esha
Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649, State of Manipur & Ors. v.
Koting Lamkang (2019) 10 SCC 408, G. Ramegowda v. Spl.
Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v.
Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132, Special Tehsildar, Land
Acquisition v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996) 10 SCC 634, Manjunath
Anandappa v. Tammanasa (2003) 10 SCC 390, Gujarat Steel
Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC
593, State of M.P. v. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654, where in one
case, the delay of four days was not condoned but in another case
a delay of 2449 days was condoned, it was observed in the
following words:
“29. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there
cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to
ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the
State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to
technical considerations of delay. However, these
decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation
of delay being a discretionary power available to courts,
exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the
sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of
acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being
immaterial. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause
being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered,
delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas,
in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be
condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and
acceptable.”
So the aspect of delay is to be considered on the above
parameters. The law touching condonation of delay remain
PPA No.10/2022
NDMC Vs. Habibul Rehman and Anr.
	Page 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
basically the same, be it Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
concerned or Section 9(2) of the PP Act is under consideration.
11. There is a difference between an individual and an
institution and this fact cannot be denied. An individual is far
more careful, vigilant and concerned with his or her interest
whereas in the institutions, these aspects may fail to garner such
importance. Although, this in itself alone cannot be a ground to
condone the delay, as has been contended on behalf of the
respondents. But then, individuals manning the institutions may
be deliberate and serious and some of them may not be as sincere
as they should be. There are instances where at the cost of the
institutional welfare, the individuals failed to play the role which
they should have with diligence and sincerity. Therefore, this fact
is to be kept in mind as well. Laws can’t be enforced by
divorcing it from the ground realities of life.
12. The delay, according to the appellant, is attributable to
the circumstances and to some extent, laxity of the individuals
performing their duties. This in itself should not be permitted to
deny the appellant from availing the legal rights it has, especially
when the appellant is able to show from record that the factors
were beyond the control of any single individual. An institution
works with the joint efforts and involvement of more than one
person and if any one of them is not responsive and responsible,
then such circumstances, in which the appellant has been placed,
emerge more often than not. It is not that the organizations or
institutions do not have any remedy but then, that remedy is in
the shape of some or the other administrative or disciplinary
action against the persons responsible. The loss to the institution
cannot be prevented by penalising individuals. In such
circumstances, the institution and institutional interest is required
PPA No.10/2022
NDMC Vs. Habibul Rehman and Anr.
	Page 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
to be protected especially when it is to the extent of granting an
opportunity to avail legal remedy. The delay has been caused by
several factors and one of which happens to be the lock-down
and other fall outs of the Pandemic, Covid. Hon’ble Supreme
Court, through a blanket order took care of the aspect of
limitation also. Covid period was not confined to lock-down
only but, its ramifications were manifold and the entire
population was affected in one way or the other. Declining the
Appeal on the basis of limitation only and, thereby, depriving a
legal remedy, would be inappropriate and as such, the application
seeking condonation of delay is allowed and delay of about ten
(10) days is condoned. Application stands disposed off
accordingly.
13. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Estate Officer
concerned.
Announced in the open Court (Vimal Kumar Yadav)
on 18th July, 2024 Principal District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
PPA No.10/2022
NDMC Vs. Habibul Rehman and Anr.
	Page 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --