9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner was a tenant in the premises at A-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi ("the tenanted premises"), from the time her husband executed the lease deed dated 15.11.1976. It is stated that eviction petitions against their tenancy had been dismissed twice, on 7.4.1980 and 31.5.1983. Consequently, it is averred that the landlords had lost the right to evict the tenants, despite the expiry of the lease period. The landlords/owners of the premises then entered into an agreement to sell with a third party, and consequently filed Form 37-I on 27.9.1996 before the Appropriate Authority. In those proceedings under Section 269 UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner's husband was required to attend the hearing on 18. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es". On the other hand, the case set up by the Revenue in the counter affidavit is that the tenancy period agreed between the erstwhile owner/landlord and the petitioner had come to an end on 14th November, 1978 and after the said date, the petitioner was a statutory tenant or month to month tenant. In other words, the stand put up by the Revenue is that they are entitled to evict the petitioner from the portion in his occupation. As the property now vests with the Central Government, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 is not applicable. In the counter affidavit the Revenue has stated that as per the Public Premises. (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971 notice can be issued and the petitioner can be evicted. This is the correct pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paid within a period of one month. 10. We are inclined to accept the said undertaking keeping in view the old age of the petitioner and also the factum that proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971 may take some time before an order is passed. The undertaking will bring this litigation to an end and curtail any further proceedings which may arise. It is clarified that in case there is any breach in the undertaking it will be open to the respondent to forcefully evict the petitioner or any person in occupation of the premises without taking recourse to eviction proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971. Undertaking will be executed as an eviction order un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to challenge, as being discriminatory against private individuals and in favour of public sector undertakings/Government Departments, the latter being allowed to pursue such negotiations. 6. The petitioner argues that the CBDT, being constituted under the Central Board of Revenue Act, 1963, was State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the CBDT's administrative instruction barring negotiation by private individuals for purchase of public property violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Particularly, since the state action in question is disposal of State property, all the persons interested in purchasing the same must be invited for private negotiations, in accordance with Article 14. Next, it is argued that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of 3.12.1998 as well as on 20.8.2000 for public auction of the premises. That the petitioner has continued to reside in the tenanted premises after the order of the Additional Rent Controller does not imply that the petitioner is a bona fide tenant of the premises in question, for the simple reason that this question has been decided finally by this Court in W.P.(C) no. 9574/2005, and then confirmed by the Supreme Court in the SLP order of 16.7.2012. The question of a possible bonafide tenancy in the premises cannot thus be agitated once again before this Court, by the principle of res judicata, and the compelling interest in respecting the finality of proceedings, to prevent endless litigation. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... administrative instruction, and can be challenged if it overrides or seeks to supplant the parent statute. It is nobody's case that the impugned circular overrides the Act. Instead, what is sought to be argued is that the impugned circular violates Article 14, by permitting the CCIT to enter into negotiations for disposal of property purchased under Chapter XX-C, with only a class of entities i.e. State/Central Government Departments and public sector undertakings. This Court finds that the CBDT circular reflects a policy of the Central Government that cannot possibly be judicially reviewed, except on very narrow considerations of unreasonableness or arbitrariness. See R. D Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India,(1979) 3 SCC 48 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
