✦ High Court of India · 15 Jul 2025

Ahluwalia, Ad vs DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD

Case Details High Court of India · 15 Jul 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

15 Jul 2025

Bench

MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA

Length

1,728 words

Through: Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, SC M: 9999648869 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL): W.P.(C) 9904/2025 & CM APPL. 41304/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned Notice dated 10th June, 2025, issued by the respondent, i.e., Delhi Cantonment Board, to the petitioner. 2. There is a further prayer for directions to the respondent to consider the representation dated 18th June, 2025 of the petitioner, by giving a personal hearing to the petitioner, whereby, the petitioner has expressed his willingness for the renewal or execution of fresh lease, on mutually W.P.(C) 9904/2025 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:19.07.2025 19:54:28 agreeable terms. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the lawful occupier of the shop bearing no. S-1, admeasuring 15.61 sq. meters situated at Kalpatru Commercial Complex, Survey No. 49/13, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt – 110010. 4. It is submitted that originally, S.K. Kapoor and Associates entered into a Lease Agreement dated 16th June, 1995, with the respondent-Delhi Cantonment Board, through which leasehold rights in respect of the said unit, were granted for an initial period of ten years, with an option for renewing, available to the lessee for a total period of upto thirty years. 5. Thereafter, S.K. Kapoor and Associates transferred their leasehold rights to Sh. Surender Singh vide Sale Agreement dated 21st February, 2008. The property exchanged further hands and ultimately leasehold rights were transferred to the petitioner by virtue of sale agreement dated 12th November, 2013. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the Notice dated 10th June, 2025, issued by the respondent, whereby, a demand of Rs. 14,21,770/- has been raised towards alleged outstanding rent in respect of said unit. 7. It is further submitted that the said Notice directs the petitioner to vacate and handover possession of the premises by 20th June, 2025, on the ground of expiry of the lease. 8. It is submitted that in terms of Clause 4 of the original Lease Deed dated 16th June, 1995, there was no obligation to pay rent, as an amount of Rs. 3,03,000/- was deposited by the lessee, in lieu thereof. 9. It is further submitted that the original Lease Deed dated 26th June, 1995, executed between respondent-Delhi Cantonment Board and Shri S.K. W.P.(C) 9904/2025 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:19.07.2025 19:54:28 Kapoor and Associates, does not contain any provision for charging interest on unpaid rent. Thus, it is submitted that any interest amount included in the outstanding dues, is without any contractual or legal basis, hence, the same is not payable. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no prior demand notices have been served upon the petitioner during the subsistence of the lease term. In the absence of any timely demand notice, any unilateral accumulation of the alleged dues after a significant delay is arbitrary, and such claim shall be barred by the principle of limitation. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the receipt of the Notice, vide reply dated 18th June, 2025, the petitioner has already expressed their willingness to renew the license on any fair, equitable terms, which are agreeable between the parties. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent-Delhi Cantonment Board is separate, and independent of the proceedings that would be initiated by the respondent for recovery of the rent under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (“PP Act”). 13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Delhi Cantonment Board, on advance notice, submits that the petitioner herein is a stranger, and the respondent does not recognize the petitioner. 14. He submits that the respondent had entered into a Lease Agreement with Shri S.K. Kapoor and Associates. Thereafter, the leasehold rights were transferred by S.K. Kapoor and Associates in favour of Sh. Surender Singh, which was approved by the competent authority. Thereafter, a lease deed W.P.(C) 9904/2025 Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:19.07.2025 19:54:28 dated 14th November, 2000 was executed between the Delhi Cantonment Board and Sh. Surender Singh. It is submitted that the respondent is not aware of any arrangement, which the petitioner has with the registered lessee, or anyone else. 15. He draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P-1 and P-3, which are the notices issued by the respondent with regard to the premises in question, to submit that the said notices have been issued against the recorded lessee, i.e., Shri Surinder Singh S/o Shri Hardit Singh, and not to the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent-Delhi Cantonment Board further draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P-3, attached with the present petition, i.e., Notice dated 07th July, 2025, issued under Section 4 of the PP Act. 17. He submits that, as of now, only a Notice under Section 4 of the PP Act for eviction has been issued. Additionally, the provisions for recovery of rent are contained in Section 7 of the PP Act, qua which a notice is yet to be issued by the respondent. Thus, he submits that as regards the dues which are payable, no recovery action, as such, has been initiated by the respondent. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent further relies upon the Lease Agreement dated 16th June, 1995, between the respondent and Shri Surinder Singh to submit that the lease was only for a total period of thirty years, and the said period of lease cannot exceed thirty years. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in view of the fact that the period of lease of thirty years has already lapsed in terms of Lease Agreement, Notice dated 10th June, 2025, was rightly issued. W.P.(C) 9904/2025 Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:19.07.2025 19:54:28

20. He draws the attention of this Court to the Notice dated 10th June, 2025, wherein, it is clearly stated that the period of thirty years would expire on 25th June, 2025, after which, the petitioner has been directed to vacate and handover the commercial unit. The said Notice dated 10th June, 2025 is extracted as below:

21. He further submits that the present writ petition is pre-mature, since a Notice dated 07th July, 2025 under Section 4 of the PP Act has already been issued to the registered lessee, and the registered lessee has been directed to appear on 22nd July, 2025 before the Estate Officer, Delhi Cantonment Board for a personal hearing. W.P.(C) 9904/2025 Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:19.07.2025 19:54:28

22. He, thus, submits that any action for eviction of the petitioner, shall be taken only, in accordance with law. 23. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon Annexure P-2, which is notice of demand dated 11th May, 2017, wherein, although the said notice of demand, has been issued to the registered lessee, i.e., Shri. Surinder Singh S/o Shri Hardit Singh, but the same clearly notes that the occupier is Smt. Parveen Verma, i.e., the petitioner herein. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given a representation dated 18th June, 2025, wherein, the petitioner has given his willingness to renew the lease on fresh terms. 25. However, the said submission is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondent. 26. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that terms of the Lease Agreement dated 16th June, 1995, categorically state that the total period of lease will not exceed thirty years. 27. Thus, no directions can be made by this Court for continuation of the petitioner in the premises in question, beyond the terms of Lease Deed, which has already been accepted by the petitioner/registered lessee. 28. This Court further notes that an Eviction Notice dated 07th July, 2025 under Section 4 of the PP Act has already been issued and the registered lessee/petitioner is required to appear before the Estate Officer on 22nd July,

2025. 29. This Court further notes the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner shall not be evicted, without following the due process of law. W.P.(C) 9904/2025 Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:19.07.2025 19:54:28

30. Accordingly, the respondent is held bound by the said statement and it is directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question, without following the due procedure and process of law. 31. It is to be noted that in a similar matter, i.e., W.P.(C) 9688/2025, titled as “Davinder Singh Versus Delhi Cantonment Board”, this Court has already directed that the representation of the petitioners therein, be considered by the respondent, as per its policy. 32. Therefore, in parity with the said order passed in W.P.(C) 9688/2025, this Court directs that the representation of the petitioner dated 18th June, 2025, be considered by the respondent, as per its policy. 33. It is further clarified that since, in the present case, Notice dated 07th July, 2025 under Section 4 of the PP Act has already been issued, the representation of the petitioner shall be considered independent of the said proceedings. 34. It is clarified that the fact that the representation of the petitioner is being considered by respondent, would not have any bearing on the proceedings under Section 4 of the PP Act. 35. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 36. Needless to state that rights and contentions of both the parties are left open, to be raised in appropriate proceedings. 37. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with pending applications, is disposed of. JULY 15, 2025/KR MINI PUSHKARNA, J W.P.(C) 9904/2025 Page 7 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:19.07.2025 19:54:28

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments