2011 (11) TMI 490 - HC - Income Tax

Property acquired u/s 269UD - Rights and obligations of a tenant when protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 Revenue s stand that they are entitled to evict the petitioner from the portion in his occupation - Held that - Order u/s 269UD has attained finality, thus petitioner herein cannot challenge the said order. Regarding rights & obligations of tenants, the issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam Vs. UOI (1992 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT) that there is no provision for giving the concerned parties an opportunity of being heard before an order is passed under the provisions of section 269UD - the Constitutional Bench struck down the words free from encumbrances in sub-section 1 of Section 269UE, and it must be read without the expression free from all encumbrances . Further, Central Government is entitled to initiate eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971 and the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 is no longer available. At this stage, petitioner filed an undertaking that property would be vacated on or before 30th November, 2012. Keeping in view the old age of the petitioner and other factors, such undertaking is accepted and in case of breach of 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the letter requesting vacation of premises by the Appropriate Authority of Income Tax Department.
2. Rights and obligations of a tenant when the property has been acquired under Section 269 UD(1).
3. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 after the property vests with the Central Government.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The writ petition challenged the letter dated 20.5.2005 requesting the petitioner to vacate the premises within 10 days. The petitioner, a protected tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, claimed occupancy since 1976 and resisted eviction attempts by previous landlords. The property, including the tenanted portion, was acquired by the Central Government under Section 269 UD(1), which was upheld in previous legal proceedings. The petitioner's challenge against this acquisition order was dismissed, making it final. The petitioner cannot question the order under Section 269 UD(1).

Issue 2:
The Supreme Court rulings in C.B. Gautam Vs. UOI and Adair Dutt and Co. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority clarified the rights and obligations of tenants when properties are acquired under Section 269 UD(1). The property vests in the Central Government subject to existing encumbrances and leasehold interests, except those agreed to be discharged by the vendor. Monthly tenancies are not affected, but tenants lose protection under rent control laws. In this case, the Revenue claimed the tenancy period ended, and the petitioner was a statutory or month-to-month tenant, justifying eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971.

Issue 3:
With the property now owned by the Central Government, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 no longer applies. The Revenue intended to evict the petitioner legally, not by force, under the Public Premises Act. The petitioner, an elderly widow, offered to vacate the premises by a specified date through an undertaking, which the court accepted to end the litigation. Any breach of the undertaking would allow the respondent to evict without further legal proceedings. The undertaking would be executed as an eviction order under the Public Premises Act.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of without costs, accepting the petitioner's undertaking to vacate the premises, considering her age and the circumstances, thereby bringing the legal proceedings to a close.