2019 (2) TMI 1287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... instituted after the two previous petitions preferred by the petitioner's predecessor failed to meet with any success. 4. The petitioner's father was a tenant in the first floor of the said property (hereafter 'the tenanted premises') pursuant to a lease deed, dated 15.11.1976 executed with the landlord/owner of the said property. The said lease had expired and the landlord had instituted an eviction petition which was dismissed. 5. Sometimes in the year 1996, the landlord/owner of the said property entered into an agreement to sell with a third party. As required under Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the landlords/owners filed Form 37-I before the appropriate authority on 27.09.1996. The Central Government exercised its powers to acquire the said property and, on 26.03.1997, passed an order under 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.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner was requested to vacate the premises within 10 days. It also states that petitioner was an unauthorized occupant and therefore, should vacate the property. 9. At this stage, ld. counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a widow and about 83 years of age. She has been staying in the property since 1976. He states that the petitioner and her children will file an undertaking in this Court that they shall vacate the premises on or before 30th November, 2012. The said undertaking will be filed by Shiela Sen Gupta within two weeks and by her children within 4 weeks as it is stated that one of the children is residing abroad. The property will not be sublet or transferred. The petitioner will continue to pay rent/occupation charges/damages at the rate of existing rate. In case there are any arrears, the same 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r's parents were unauthorised occupants of the said property. They 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. 11. Just prior to expiry of the period of two years as granted by the Supreme Court, the mother of the petitioner (since deceased), Smt. Shiela Sen Gupta filed another writ petition (W.P.(C) 4120/2014), inter alia, impugning the CBDT's instruction No. 1908, dated 19.07.1993. It is relevant to note that this instruction is also impugned in the present petition. 12. In terms of the aforesaid instructions, the Income Tax Department was prohibited from entering into direct negotiations with any individual for disposal of the property acquired by it. The efforts 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 a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9;s discretion in disposal of the property." 14. As is apparent from the above, 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. 15. The petitioner's mother (who was the petitioner in W.P.(C) 4120/2014) impugned the aforesaid decision before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 19936/2015). The said petition was dismissed by an order, dated 03.08.2015, which is reproduced below:- "We are informed that 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. ....