Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs M/S Badarpur Traders Union on 9 January, 2024
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:-9th January, 2024
+ CS(OS) 145/2020, I.As. 1424/2022 & 17582/2022
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. J.P. Singh, Sr Adv along with
Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing
Counsel, DDA, Ms. Kritika Gupta,
Mr Shashi Pratap Singh, Advs. (M.
9560536975)
versus
M/S BADARPUR TRADERS UNION ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. S.P. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr
Vaibhav Kalra, Ms Anisha
Upadhyay, Ms Neha Bhatnagat, Ms
Tania Chanda, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A. 1424/2022 (u/O XII R 6 r/w CPC ) & I.A. 17582/2022(u/O VI R 17 CPC) in CS(OS)-145/2020
2. These are two applications filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking judgement on the basis of admissions and amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
3. The present suit arises out of a perpetual lease deed dated 15 th December, 2017 and the regularisation-cum-demand letter dated 14th June, 2017 executed by the Plaintiff- Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in favour of the Defendant- Badarpur Traders Union (hereinafter 'union'). The
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 1 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 suit has been filed by the DDA seeking cancellation of the lease deed and the regularisation letter executed by DDA, i.e. the Plaintiff itself, and other reliefs in respect of the said two documents which relate to a land admeasuring 3.69 Acres situated at Community Centre, Near Tughlakabad Metro Station, Badarpur, New Delhi (hereinafter 'suit land'). The prayers sought by the Plaintiff are set out below:
"(a) pass a decree of Cancellation in respect of the Perpetual Lease deed dated 15/12/2017 and Regularization- cum-demand letter dated 14/06/2017 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant qua the Suit Land, being illegal, null and void and the same may be directed to be delivered· up and cancelled and a copy of the decree may be sent to the concerned Sub-
Registrar with the direction to record/note the factum of the said cancellation in his books;
(b) pass a decree for Possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in respect of the Suit Land, more particularly described in the Site Plan, thereby directing the Defendant to handover the peaceful, physical and vacant possession of the Suit Land in favor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff be put in possession of the same;
c) pass a decree of Mesne Profits in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in respect of the unauthorized occupation of the Defendant qua the Suit land to the tune of Rs. 44,35,92,287/- for the past 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the present suit and further Mesne Profits from the date of institution of the present suit till the handing over of possession of the same at the rate as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court.
d) pass a decree of Permanent Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, restraining the defendant, its agents, assignees, representatives, nominees or anyone claiming through/under it, from
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 2 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 transferring, alienating, letting out, parting with or otherwise creating any third party interest whatsoever in respect of the Suit Land, more particularly described in the Site Plan;
(e) pass such further orders as may be deemed necessary in the present facts and circumstances."
4. The case of the DDA is that on 10th January, 1968 a Memorandum of Agreement was executed by the Delhi Administration in favour of Badarpur Traders Union in respect of Land admeasuring 8.52 acres in Village Badarpur for a period of one year. According to the DDA, the said agreement was executed for the purpose of giving the Union a license for 'stacking of sand' at the said land at a license fee of Rs. 20,448/- which comes to Rs. 2400/- per acre. Thereafter, a temporary license was granted to the Defendant for the purposes of carrying on their trading on the condition that no structure would be erected. It is the stand of the DDA that as per the license agreement, if any structure were to be erected by the licensee, the said structure would be liable to be removed and the license would stand cancelled.
5. There was a litigation initiated being Suit No. 674/73 titled M/s. Badarpur Traders Union (Regd.) v. Union of India filed by the Union against the Union of India, before the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi seeking an injunction restraining the cancellation of a license or from resumption of the land or from dispossession of the suit land. In the said suit, initially, DDA was not arrayed as a party. It is the contention of the DDA that in the said suit the Union had admitted that the suit land had fallen into the control and management of the DDA. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 11th May, 1981. The operative portion of the
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 3 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 said decision is set out below:
RELIEF In view of the above discussion the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the defendants are restrained from cancelling the lease/ or to resume land and evict and dispossess the plaintiff otherwise than in due course of law. The defendants are also restrained from recovering the suit amount as areas of land revenue. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the adjustment of excess amount paid by it against the arrears payable by the plaintiff. A decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to Record Room.
6. The Union of India preferred an appeal against the said judgement before the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Delhi. The appeal was heard and vide judgment dated 14th March, 2008, the appeal was allowed and the said decree was set aside. It was in the appellate stage that the DDA was impleaded as a Respondent in the appeal. The relevant extract of the judgement dated 14th March, 2008 is set out below:
"38. In the light of entire ongoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the suit land was given to the respondent no. 1/plaintiff on license basis and not on lease basis as held by the Ld. Trial Court. As the license had already been revoked by the appellants, thus respondent No. 1/plaintiff had no right to occupy the suit land in further and is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the original suit. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.05.1981 is set aside. Appeal is allowed. No order as to cost. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room."
7. The matter was carried in the Regular Second Appeal, R.SA. No. 91/2008 titled Badarpur Traders Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and on
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 4 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 23rd May, 2011, the High Court of Delhi held that the Union was a licensee and the relationship is that of a license and not of a lease. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:
"23. The impugned judgment on no count calls for an interference. It had correctly noted that the memorandum of agreement dated 10.1.1968 read along with other documentary evidence i.e. Ex.D-9 to Ex.D-11 created a license in favor of the plaintiff and not a lease. Substantial question of law is answered in favor of the respondent and against the appellant.
24. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal as also the pending application is dismissed."
The above judgment was finally confirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 4th May, 2012 when the SLP was dismissed.
8. In the meantime, proceedings under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were also initiated. During this entire period writ petitions also came to be filed being W.P(C) 7312/2005 titled DDA v. Badarpur Traders Union and Anr. and W.P(C)5424/2008 titled Badarpur Traders Union (Regd.) v. DDA and Anr. One of the said petitions was filed by the DDA and the second one by the Traders Union against the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer.
9. The Estate Officer, initially, granted an eviction order which was challenged by the Union in appeal and the eviction order was set aside vide order dated 22nd September, 2001. This order was challenged by the DDA in a writ petition being W.P(C)7312/2005. Another writ petition being came to be filed by the Traders Union being W.P(C)5424/2008 seeking additional land.
10. During the pendency of these writs, a representation was made by the
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 5 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 Traders Union on 4th September, 2014 to the Commissioner Planning (DDA) which resulted in a perpetual lease dated 15th December, 2017 being executed by the DDA in favour of the Traders Union. This, according to the Traders Union, is duly approved by all the competent authorities and the premium was also calculated based upon the rates in 1977 along with interest being paid.
11. The Court has heard ld. Sr. Counsels for both the parties at length and perused the record.
12. This Court observes that for the execution of the perpetual lease agreement dated 15th December, 2017, the consideration was not on the basis of the market value in 2017 but on the basis of the amount which was prevalent in 1977 along with interest. In the opinion of this Court, it is apparent that these facts were not disclosed in the writ petition which led to the Court making stringent observations in respect of the 2017 lease. It is also observed that the factum of execution of the lease was not disclosed in the writ petitions during the pendency of the said writs and only came to the knowledge of the ld. Single Judge later as recorded in the order dated 19th July, 2018. The said order is set out below:
"1. The counsel for Badarpur Traders Union (BTU) states that these petitions have become infructuous since the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has executed a lease deed with respect to the premises to which these petitions pertain, in favour of BTU.
2. It is informed, that W.P.(C) No.7312/2005 has been filed against the order of the District Judge exercising powers as an Appellate Authority under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act), allowing the appeal preferred by BTU against the order of the Estate
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 6 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 Officer of the DDA of eviction of BTU. It is further informed that W.P.(C) No.5424/2008 has been filed by BTU seeking mandamus to the DDA to regularize the possession of BTU of the subject premises and not to interfere with occupation of BTU of the premises in their occupation at Badarpur.
2. The counsel for DDA states that the lease deed aforesaid which has been executed and registered has not been approved by the DDA.
3. On enquiry, as to how the question of approval after registration arises, it is stated that the lease deed is void, being contrary to statute.
4. On further enquiry as to what action has been taken against the officials who have executed the lease deed, it is stated that the matter is being investigated.
5. The lease deed is informed to have been executed on 15th December, 2017 and more than seven months have already elapsed. DDA ought not to take such a long time for taking action against officials who have illegally divested DDA of public property.
6. I have further enquired from the counsel for the DDA as to how this Court can refuse to take notice of the lease deed unless the same is declared void by an appropriate Court / fora.
7. The counsel for the DDA seeks four weeks' time.
8. The same shows the apathy of the officials of the DDA towards public property vested in them.
9. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Vice Chairperson of the DDA.
10. The Director (Land Disposal) as well as the Director (Commercial Land) of the DDA to, within two weeks hereof, file a detailed affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the lease deed was executed, identifying the officials responsible therefor and the action which the Vice Chairperson proposes to take in this regard and the timelines thereof.
11. If the affidavit is not found to be satisfactory, this Court will have to take further steps.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 7 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28
12. List on 8th August, 2018.
13. The counsel for the DDA to ensure compliance of this order."
13. In the above order, the ld. Single Judge took a strong view in respect of the conduct of the officials and the manner in which public property was being dealt with. It was around the same time that the present suit came to be filed before this Court in 2020. Initially, vide order dated 18th June, 2020, the Court heard the submissions on behalf of the DDA and granted an interim order in the following terms:
"2. It is stated by the plaintiff and also contended by Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the plaintiff that the present suit has been filed seeking cancellation of Regularization cum-demand letter dated June 14, 2017 issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and a Perpetual Lease Deed dated December 15, 2017 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the defendant with respect to the Suit Land, the same is illegal, null and void, and liable to be cancelled on the following grounds:
(i) Firstly, neither the Regularization-cum-demand letter dated June 14, 2017 nor the Perpetual Lease Deed dated December 15, 2017 should have been executed considering that the matter is pending adjudication before this Court in CWP No. 5424/2008.
There was no order of this Court to execute the Lease Deed and no permission either was sought from this Court prior to the issuance of Regularization cum- demand letter dated June 14, 2017 and execution of lease deed dated December 15, 2017. The plaintiff has already initiated Vigilance Enquiry against its various Officers and appropriate action in this regard shall be taken in due course.
(ii) Secondly, the second recital of the aforesaid lease deed states that: "Whereas by an agreement dated the
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 8 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 15th day of December 2017 made between the parties hereto the Lessor granted a licence to the Lessee to enter upon the piece of land....". This proposition is factually incorrect. As per the first recital of lease deed, the President of India is the Lessor through DDA, and as per the facts of the case DDA i.e. the plaintiff herein never granted any licence in favour of the defendant herein. It was the Delhi Administration which granted a temporary licence in favour of the defendant herein which has already been held by the Court to have already been revoked.
(iii) Thirdly, there is neither any schedule of property attached with the lease deed nor the property sought to be leased is properly identified in the lease deed. There has to be a complete description of property which is the subject matter of the agreement.
(iv) Fourthly, there are un-attested and un-filled blanks in the lease deed, which further renders it voidable being ambiguous. He draws my attention to one of the un-filled blanks pertains to approval of layout plan. He submitted that there is no approved layout plan for 3.69 acres of land, referred to in the lease deed. Thus, the lease deed has been executed without the approval of layout plan of the land parcel.
(v) Fifthly, the parties have not attested with their signatures or initials such blanks as per the provision of Section 20 of the Registration Act, 1908.
(vi) Sixthly, the aforesaid Perpetual Lease in question is in blatant violation of the Nazul Rules, 1981. He submitted the format of this lease has been borrowed from Form A in the Schedule to the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981 which is prescribed as per Rule 23 for cases where land is allotted to Cooperative Societies, in accordance with Rule 21 read with Rule 6(vi). However, according to him, the present case is the case of a lease of in-situ allotment of commercial land to body registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 involving further sub-lease
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 9 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 in favour of its members, which is not provided in the Nazul Rules, 1981. Hence prior approval of Competent Authority i.e. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs was required as per Rule 42 and 45 of said Nazul Rules, 1981 along with corresponding approval for format of lease that may be executed in such cases. But in the present case, no such approval had been sought prior to issuance of Regularization-cumdemand letter dated June 14, 2017 and execution of Lease Deed dated December 15, 2017. He stated that the piece of land prevailing at the time of communication of the letter of allotment is the rate payable by an allottee of land. Thus, the price of land prevailing at the time of communication of approval of allotment was to be charged, if prior approval would have been sought from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
According to him, vide Allotment cum-Demand letter dated June 30, 2008, the Land admeasuring 39082 Sqm. was allotted by the Plaintiff herein on permanent basis at Tughlakabad for construction of Viaduct of Central Secretariat Badarpur Corridor of MRTS Project Phase-II at the rate of Rs. 74.42 Lakhs per Acre.
3. Having heard Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant, its agents, assignees, representatives, nominees, or anyone claiming through / under it, are restrained from transferring, alienating, letting out, parting with or otherwise creating any third-party interest in respect of the suit land, more particularly described in the site plan (at page 7 of the documents file) till the next date of hearing."
As can be seen from the said order, various grounds were alleged by the DDA to argue that the lease deed which was executed is liable to be
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 10 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 cancelled.
14. In the present suit, the Defendant has filed the written statement and the counter claim. The present application i.e., I.A. 17582/2022 has now been moved seeing amendment of the pleadings. The ground pleaded in the application is that certain facts have come to the notice of the DDA, especially, that the Defendant is not a registered trade union and that the said trade union has committed a fraud. Paragraph 3 of the application is relevant and is extracted below:
"3. That the Plaintiff is in receipt of certain pertinent documents of the year 2022, i.e. after filing of the suit, that led the Plaintiff to enquire into the question -whether the Defendant is a Registered Trade Union. The enquiry into this question has revealed a number of documents and Notings from its record that are pertinent to put on record to demonstrate that the Defendant was was not a registered Trade Union or even a Trade Union and has committed fraud on the Plaintiff in claiming to be such. As such, based on this subsequent information as well as certain subsequent documents, that are subsequent to the filing of the Suit, the Plaintiff is seeking to make certain amendments in its Plaint."
15. Mr. J.P. Sengh, ld. Sr. Counsel has relied upon a compilation of documents dated 19th December, 2022 wherein according to him, it was revealed through a letter written by the DDA to the District Labour Office - the Registrar of Trade Unions, that the registration of the original trade union was cancelled due to non-submission of annual returns. Thereafter, the re-registration of the union was sought on 8th June, 2015. This according to the DDA changes the entire nature of the dispute inasmuch as the fact that the original union's registration is cancelled, according to ld. Sr. Counsel
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 11 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 was not disclosed in any proceedings. These facts having come to the knowledge of the Plaintiff after the filing of the present suit would, as per the DDA, constitute fraud, inasmuch as since the original union no longer existed, the lease deed could not have been executed in favour of the Defendant which is not the same earlier union which was allotted the land in 1967. In addition, he relies upon the list of members to show that the said list reveals that a large number of members are persons belonging to the same families and, thus, there is an attempt to usurp the land by claiming that the Union is the same old union which was given the land on a license.
16. On the other hand, Mr. Agarwal, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the Union submits that the application seeking amendment of pleadings would not be liable to be allowed inasmuch as the scope of the suit is being enlarged. According to ld. Sr. counsel, the lease deed has a clause to the effect that termination of the lease would not be permissible without a show cause unless there is an allegation of fraud. Reliance is placed on clause IV and the sub-clauses which reads as under:
"IV. No forfeiture or re-entry shall be effected until the Lessor has served on the Lessee and the sub-lessee concerned a notice in writing:
(a) specifying the particular breach complained of, and
(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the Lessee and the sub-lessee concerned to remedy the breach and if Lessee and the sub-lessee concerned fail within such reasonable time as may be mentioned in the notice to remedy the breach if it is capable of remedy, and in the event of forfeiture or re-entry the Lessor may in his discretion relieve again forfeiture on such terms and conditions as he thinks proper.
Nothing in this clause shall apply to forfeiture or re- entry:
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 12 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28
(a) for breach of covenants and conditions relating to sub-division or amalgamation, erection, and completion of buildings, within the time provided and transfer of any of the commercial plots as mentioned in Clause II, or
(b) in case the lease or any sub-lease has been obtained by suppression of any fact, mis-statement, misrepresentation, or fraud."
17. It is his submission that in the initial pleadings' fraud having not being pleaded, allowing DDA to plead at this stage would substantively affect the rights of the Traders Union. He, further, submits that the entire defence of the Defendant and the counter claim which is based on the said clause that the lease cannot be forfeited and no re-entry is permitted would be adversely affected. It is his, further, submission that the Traders Union is the same union which was originally allotted the land in question. Ld. Sr. Counsel also points out that the fact the Secretary of the Defendant Traders Union who is doing the pairvi of this case is the same person who has been representing the same union in several proceedings since 2001. Thus, as per ld. Sr. Counsel the allegation that the union is the different union is without any basis.
18. Ld. Sr. Counsel also vehemently contends that the mere fact that the earlier registration may have been cancelled and a re-registration may have been issued may not change the status of the union. He, further, submits that the DDA had commenced disciplinary action against various officials who were alleged to have been complicit in the execution of the perpetual lease deed, however, the said disciplinary action was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court also. Thus, allegations of fraud or collusion are not
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 13 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 borne out from the documents or the pleadings. The final submission is that the lease was executed after obtaining all the requisite approvals, thus, there is no ground for seeking cancellation.
19. Heard ld. Sr. counsels for the parties. At this stage, the Court is merely considering the application for amendment of pleadings i.e., under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and not the merits of the amendment. When any party files an application for amendment of pleadings the primary focus of the Court is to check if the amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and not on the substantive merits of the amendment itself. This principle has been clarified by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions including North Eastern Railway Admn. v. Bhagwan Das, (2008) 8 SCC 511 and LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128. In the course of deciding such applications, the Court takes into account whether the amendment would alter the nature of the case or introduce a new cause of action. Further, it has been clarified in several decisions including A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 and A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 that in practice, Courts ought to adopt a liberal approach towards allowing amendments, provided they are made in good faith, do not unfairly prejudice the opposite party and are necessary for dispute resolution. Therefore, it is clear that the intention of incorporation of such a provision, is to enable the Court to effectively and justly decide on the real controversy in dispute, rather than getting entangled in hyper-technicalities.
20. In the present case, it is the case of the Plaintiff that the amendment has been triggered due to the replies given by the Registrar of the Trade
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 14 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 Unions. The said letter of the Labour Commissioner dated 30th August, 2022 is set out below:
"Sir This is with reference to your letter no F.16 (106)76/MP/Pt./3278 dated 29.08.2022. In this connection it is to inform you that, the records regarding registration of Badarpur Traders Union on 06.01.1967 are not available in District South and are also not traceable, therefore as per the available records in this office, the information pertaining to point no 1-10 of your above said letter is not available in this office.
However, Badarpur Traders Union has filed an application on 08.06.2015 for re-registration of their union stating that Badarpur Traders Union was earlier registered vide registration no 1161 but its registration was cancelled due to non submission of annual returns. The application dated 08.06.2015 for registration of trade union was considered afresh, and it was registered in this office vide no F10/DRTU/SD/41/2015 on 19.06.2015. "
21. The above letter reveals three facts:
i. That the records relating to the registration of Badarpur Traders Union on 6th January, 1967 are not available with the Registrar of Trade Unions. Thus, as on date it is impossible for the DDA to verify as to the membership of the trade union at the time of registration and as on date.
ii. The second fact revealed by this letter is that the registration no.
1161 of the Badarpur Traders Union was cancelled due to non- submission of annual returns. This fact is not disclosed, admittedly in the written statement.
iii. That in view of the fact that the registration was cancelled due
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 15 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 to non-submission of returns as per the Defendant, the Defendant applied for re-registration on 8th June, 2015.
22. From the above three facts which are emanating from the letter dated 30th August, 2022, it is clear that these are facts which go to the root of the matter. The nature of the identity of the Badarpur Traders Union would be a crucial issue that would have to be gone into in the present suit inasmuch as the original license which was granted was to the said union in a particular avatar for a particular purpose. The present lease deed which has been executed in favour of the re-registered Badarpur Traders Union has been challenged by the DDA. The DDA, in the amendment application merely intends to add fresh grounds including the facts which the Union did not disclose in the Written statement i.e., the factum of cancellation of registration of the earlier union and its application for re-registration.
23. Clearly, these facts may have a bearing even on the execution of the lease deed. The question as to whether the same amounts to fraud or not is to be finally adjudicated in the suit. At this stage, the DDA merely wishes to add certain paragraphs in the plaint stating all these facts which would obviously be rebutted by the Defendant.
24. Under such circumstances, irrespective of the various submissions which have been made on behalf of the Defendant on merits, in the opinion of this Court, the amendment deserves to be allowed leaving all the objection on merits to be taken in the defence i.e., in the written statement which would be filed to the amended plaint.
25. It is clarified that the Court has not examined the merits of the contentions of the parties as to whether the Defendant-Union is the same Union or it is a different Union which sought re-registration. These facts
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 16 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28 would have to be thrashed out at trial after the evidence is led.
26. Under these circumstances, considering the nature of amendment, this Court is of the opinion that the amendment deserves to be allowed. The Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is accordingly allowed.
27. The amended plaint which is stated to have been filed shall be taken on record so long as the amendments are identical to what are contained in the application and no further change is made in the said application. Let the amended plaint be served upon the Defendant within one week.
28. The time for filing the amended written statement shall now commence on the date when the amended plaint is served, in terms of the timelines prescribed in the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The amended written statement be filed within 30 days along with any document which the Defendant wishes to rely upon. Replication as per the timelines prescribed in the law shall be filed.
29. Insofar the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is concerned, the same seeks decree in the counter-claim on the ground that the show cause having not been issued, the cancellation cannot be allowed. Considering the nature of the dispute in the present case where allegations of fraud have also been made and the amendment has been allowed today as also the large tracts of public land which are the subject matter of this suit, this would not be a case for a decree in favour of the Defendant, to be passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
30. The issues raised in the present suit would require adjudication after evidence is led by the parties. According the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is dismissed.
31. Both the applications are disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 17 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28
CS(OS)-145/2020
32. List before the Joint Registrar for admission/denial on 4 th March, 2024.
33. List before Court on 21st May, 2024.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JANURARY 09, 2024 dj/am
[Corrected and released on 15th January. 2024]
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 145/2020 Page 18 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:15.01.2024 18:31:28
