Court upholds acquisition order, clarifies tenant rights under Delhi Rent Control Act, petitioner to vacate.

The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against the acquisition order under Section 269 UD(1), upholding the property's vesting in the Central Government. The rights and obligations of the tenant were clarified, indicating the loss of protection under rent control laws. With the property now under government ownership, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 ceased to apply. The petitioner, an elderly widow, offered to vacate the premises by a specified date, which the court accepted, concluding the legal proceedings without costs.

---

---

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.

---