Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court rejected the petitioner’s writ petition, holding that the restoration policy introduced by the DDA in 2019 applied only to leaseholders who continued to possess the disputed property. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s rights over the property were extinguished when the DDA reclaimed possession in 2016 after completing legal proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner could not benefit from the policy.
Facts
- The petitioner was granted a perpetual lease for an industrial property in 1992 to manufacture polythene bags and related materials.
- Due to a Supreme Court ban on polluting industries, the petitioner ceased operations and repurposed the premises into a banquet hall, violating the lease terms.
- The DDA issued multiple show cause notices citing unauthorized construction and misuse of the industrial plot for commercial purposes.
- In 2005, the lease was formally revoked, and eviction proceedings were initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
- Despite challenges by the petitioner, including appeals and writ petitions, the DDA reclaimed possession of the property in 2016.
- In 2019, the DDA introduced a policy allowing restoration of leases under specific conditions. The petitioner applied under this policy but was denied restoration as the property was already under the DDA’s possession.
Issues
- Policy Eligibility: Could the petitioner, who no longer held possession of the property, invoke the DDA’s restoration policy for determined leases?
- Policy Interpretation: Did the DDA lawfully reject the petitioner’s application based on the policy’s possession requirement?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued:
- The 2019 policy permitted restoration of leases unless the property had been encroached upon or was subject to public land disputes. The rejection on the ground of possession was arbitrary.
- The policy’s inclusion of conditions for ongoing litigation indicated that determined leases under challenge were eligible for restoration.
- They were ready to meet all policy conditions, including paying penalties or addressing misuse issues.
Respondent’s Arguments
The DDA countered:
- The restoration policy was restricted to leaseholders who retained possession of the property.
- The petitioner’s lease was legally determined in 2005, and possession was reclaimed in 2016 after eviction orders were executed.
- Misuse of the property and failure to address breaches further disqualified the petitioner from any relief under the policy.
Analysis of the Law
The court analyzed the DDA’s 2019 restoration policy, emphasizing its key conditions:
- The applicant must still possess the property.
- Breaches such as misuse or unauthorized construction had to be rectified, supported by evidence like affidavits from neighboring units and photographs.
- Ongoing litigation related to the lease determination could only apply where possession was retained.
The court held that possession was a fundamental requirement, and once the DDA reclaimed the property, the petitioner ceased to meet the eligibility criteria.
Precedent Analysis
The court referred to previous decisions upholding the lease determination and eviction orders, reaffirming the principle that once possession is lost, any legal or contractual rights over the property are extinguished. Earlier judgments dismissing the petitioner’s challenges further reinforced the DDA’s actions.
Court’s Reasoning
- Possession as a Precondition: The court reasoned that the restoration policy explicitly limited eligibility to leaseholders who retained possession of their properties.
- Petitioner’s Ineligibility: The petitioner’s rights over the property were extinguished following the eviction in 2016. Consequently, the policy was inapplicable.
- Policy Scope: The court noted that the policy’s intent was to regularize misuse and breaches for those still in possession, not to revive rights for properties already reclaimed by the DDA.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner could not claim relief under the restoration policy as they no longer held possession of the property. The court also disposed of any pending applications related to the case.
Implications
This judgment sets a significant precedent for interpreting restoration policies for reclaimed properties:
- For Leaseholders: It clarifies that retaining possession is a critical requirement to benefit from restoration schemes.
- For Authorities: It underscores the discretion of agencies like the DDA in implementing such policies and taking possession of properties post-eviction.
- Broader Legal Principle: The ruling reinforces the idea that leaseholders lose all rights once possession is legally reclaimed by the lessor.
