The Delhi High Court ruled that the shops provided to the members of the Panchkuian Furniture Market Association (appellant), New Delhi, for the purpose of running their livelihood, cannot become a concessional transfer of property rights in their entirety, and would, at best, constitute recompense in personam.
The Court clarified that such shops provided to the member association with a view to ensuring that there is no deprivation of livelihood is a limited right, and cannot be treated as a transfer of complete ownership or proprietary rights over the shops. The Court, therefore, refused to permit the appellant to deprive the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) of the right to enjoy the lease rights.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the appellant’s members were originally only tehbazari right holders with 11-month renewable licenses, and the 30-year lease they received was a significant “step-up” from their earlier legal rights, which they had unequivocally and unambiguously accepted via the consent order.
The Bench noted the inordinate and non-bona fide delay of five and a half years in preferring the petition after entering into the lease agreements, and concurred with the Single Judge that the appellant’s reliance on the 2003 allotment letter was unmerited, as its terms were substantially modified by the 2009 letter, which changed the primordial objective to include property development.
The Bench also found the reliance on the relocation policy for a 99-year lease to be unmerited, as it pertained to a different class of persons (associations constructing their own shops at market rates), and none of those conditions were met in the present case. Accordingly, the Bench upheld the findings of the Single Judge, and termed it as a re-enactment of the Arabian fable of the “camel in the tent”.
Briefly, the appellant is an association of members who held Licence/Tehbazari Rights for their shops on Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. The dispute arose when the market was required to be removed for the construction of Delhi Metro Line-3, and a committee was constituted to address the relocation and rehabilitation of the Appellant’s members. Although land at Bhai Vir Singh Marg was allotted to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) for this purpose, the DMRC, in 2005, terminated the members’ licenses. On being challenged by the appellant, a consent order was passed, and based on the consensus, the members were allowed to continue their business on a 30-year lease at a concessional rate, and individual lease agreements were signed.
Later, in 2016, the appellant issued a legal notice contending that the 30-year lease term was contrary to the original allotment terms and that Clause 20 of the Lease Deed, which prohibited selling or assigning shops, was ambiguous. The DMRC refused to amend the lease, leading the appellant to file a writ petition seeking an increase in the lease duration to 99 years and the right to sell/assign their shops. The petition was, however, dismissed by the Single Judge in 2019.
Appearances:
Senior Advocates Harish Malhotra and Lovkesh Sawhney, along with Advocates Anoop Kumar, Kartik Dhingra, and Rohit Kumar, for the Petitioner
SPC Pushkar Sood, CGSC Manisha Agrawal Narain, along with Advocates Shikha Sood, Anmol Vashisht, Samarth Sood, and Navneet Saharan, for the Respondent
