9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y were, however, continuing to occupy the tenanted premises under protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956, which was no longer applicable with respect to the property being purchased by the appropriate authority. This Court clearly rejected the contention that the CBDT's instruction dated 19.07.1993 was arbitrary or unreasonable. It is also apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid order that this Court did not accept that the petitioner therein had any rights in respect of the said property and expressly clarified that the observations made by the Court would not confer any advantage on the petitioner therein or release her from the undertaking she had furnished. The petitioner's mother expired on 01.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to pursue the Appropriate Authority for information regarding disposal of the property - The petitioner has filed the present petition as the Income Tax Department continues to use the said property without any immediate timelines to dispose of the same. Insofar as the challenge to the CBDT's Policy (CBDT's Instructions dated 19.07.1993) is concerned, the said issue is no longer res integra. The challenge to the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to purchase the said property. As stated above, this also included the tenanted premises, which had earlier been leased to the petitioner's father (Late Group Captain J.C. Sen Gupta). 6. After acquiring the said property, the Appropriate Authority attempted to auction the same but the said efforts failed. Thereafter, the Appropriate Authority issued a notice dated 24.02.2005, directing that the physical possession of the said property be handed over to it. The petitioner's father impugned the said notice by way of a writ petition - W.P.(C) 9574/2005 captioned J.C. Sen Gupta v. Appropriate Authority before this Court. Group Captain. J.C. Sen Gupta (the petitioner therein) expired on 28.03.2006, during the pendency of the petition. The aforementioned writ petition was thereafter pursued by the petitioner's mother - Smt. Shiela Sen Gupta who has also since expired. The said petition, W.P.(C) 9574/2005, was disposed of by this court by an order, dated 23.11.2011. This Court held that the tenancy rights, being an existing encumbrance, would not be disturbed. The aforesaid issue had also been examined by the Constitution Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be 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 sometime 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 under the said Act. Copy of the undertaking will be also furnished to the ld. counsel for the Revenue. 8. Despite, agreeing to vacate the tenanted premises and being granted two years time to do so, the petitioner's mother filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court impugning the aforesaid judgment dated 23.11.2011 passed by this Court. The said Special Leave Petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court by an order, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fforts to auction the property at the material time had failed and the petitioner's mother was desirous of purchasing the said property by means of a private negotiations. 13. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by an order, dated 07.07.2014. The operative part of the said order is relevant and is set out below:- 9. The CBDT is conferred the authority to issue circulars and instructions for proper administration of the Income Tax Act, under Section 119. A circular is thus merely an 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 unreasonablene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the possession of the premises is handed over to the Income Tax Department by the petitioner. In case the said property is put to auction by the Income Tax Department or dispose of the property, it would be open to the petitioner to claim participation therein and whenever such request is made, the same shall be considered. The special leave petition is dismissed with the above observation. 16. The aforesaid order concluded the second round of litigation. It is clear from the above that there is no room for any doubt that the case set up by the petitioner's mother was not accepted. However, the Supreme Court had clarified that in case the said property was put to auction, it would be open for the petitioner therein to participate in the same. Clearly, the same did not confer any additional rights on the petitioner's late mother. 17. The petitioner's mother expired on 01.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to pursue the Appropriate Authority for information regarding disposal of the property. It is stated that on 03.11.2017, the petitioner received a letter from the Appropriate Authority for participating in a public auction for the said property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
