Delhi HC Upholds Eviction From NDMC Shop After Estate Director Processed Licence Transfer To His Mother

The Petitioners occupied Shop No. 44, Gole Market, New Delhi, under rights arising from their induction into a partnership with the existing licensees and the subsequent transfer/regularisation of the licence in their favour.

Petitioner No. 1’s son, Sh. R.K. Gaur, was then Director (Estate-I), NDMC, and participated in processing the transactions without disclosing their relationship.

After issuing a show-cause notice, NDMC cancelled the Petitioners’ rights on 25 July 2017.

The Estate Officer subsequently ordered eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (“PP Act”); the statutory appeal was dismissed.

Judicial review under Article 226 examines the legality of the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision as if on appeal; interference is warranted on recognised grounds such as illegality, irrationality, perversity, want of authority, or procedural impropriety (*Tata Cellular v. Union of India*; *Sarvepalli Ramaiah v. District Collector*).

Article 227 is supervisory and does not permit routine reappreciation of evidence; intervention is confined to jurisdictional error, patent perversity, or manifest failure of justice (*Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil*).

Section 2(g) of the PP Act includes continued occupation after the authority to occupy has expired or been determined; the Estate Officer’s statutory process includes notice under Section 4 and eviction and related orders under Sections 5 and 7, with an appeal under Section 9.

Administrative decision-making must also meet the rule against bias: a reasonable likelihood of bias may arise where an official participates in a matter concerning a close relative, even without proof of actual bias (*Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana*).

A court should not decide a factual contention that was not pleaded and supported by an adequate factual foundation (*Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor*).

The Court found that the relationship between Petitioner No. 1 and Director Gaur was not the sole basis for cancellation: he had participated in processing the partnership and subsequent transfer/regularisation for his mother without disclosing the relationship, and the appellate court had considered that role and the surrounding circumstances.

The Petitioners’ reply to the show-cause notice had been considered, and their participation before the Estate Officer and statutory appellate court further supported the conclusion that they had opportunities to present their case; the Court found no procedural infirmity warranting supervisory interference.

Once the cancellation stood, the Petitioners demonstrated no other subsisting authority to occupy the premises, bringing their continued occupation within Section 2(g) of the PP Act.

The Section 4 non-service objection was raised orally, was not pleaded, and required factual inquiry; moreover, the Estate Officer’s order recorded that notice had been issued on 4 August 2017.

The cancellation left the Petitioners without subsisting authority to occupy the shop, and the eviction proceedings under the PP Act were upheld.

The writ petition and pending applications, if any, were dismissed/disposed of accordingly.