Tue. Nov 24th, 2020

Ashwani Kumar Nim vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 May, 2018

2 min read

RFA No.28/2018 Page 1 of 5
2. On 12.1.2018 when notice was issued in this appeal, it

was recorded that appeal was pressed only for a limited relief of

seeking grant of pendente lite interest which has not been granted by

the impugned judgment.

3. The facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff was found

to be in unauthorised possession of a premises being Quarter No. 3-A

Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, a premises which was owned by the

Government and let out by the Government to respondent no.3 herein.

On account of the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 illegally sub-letting

the Vasant Vihar premises to the appellant/plaintiff, pursuant to the

eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the Government took back

possession of the Vasant Vihar premises on 10.10.2005. At the time

of taking possession locks were put on Vasant Vihar premises, and

which premises contained the goods of the appellant/plaintiff. The

goods of the appellant/plaintiff were released to the appellant/plaintiff

on furnishing a Bank Guarantee No.46/2006, dated 12.9.2006 pursuant

to the order passed by this Court in a writ petition. Subsequently

proceedings were initiated for recovery of damages by the respondent

RFA No.28/2018 Page 2 of 5
no.2/ defendant no.2/Estate Officer against the appellant/plaintiff and

the respondent no.3 herein and the respondent no.2/ defendant

no.2/Estate Officer passed his order dated 22.12.2006 holding the

appellant/plaintiff liable to pay damages for unauthorized occupation.

This order of the respondent no.2/ defendant no.2/Estate Officer was

however set aside in an appeal by the Additional District Judge (ADJ)

in terms of the judgment dated 11.4.2007. ADJ as per the judgment

dated 11.4.2007 observed that respondent no.2/ defendant no.2/Estate

Officer had surprisingly held only the appellant/plaintiff as liable and

there was no direction of recovery of damages against the respondent

no.3/defendant no.3 , and therefore, the order of the respondent no.2/

defendant no.2/Estate Officer dated 22.12.2006 was set aside.

respondent no.1/ defendant no.1/Union of India challenged the order

of the ADJ to this Court, and a learned Single Judge of this Court vide

his judgment dated 21.1.2010 dismissed the challenge but clarified

that in case respondent no.1/ defendant no.1/Union of India initiates

proceedings against the respondent no.3 herein then the present

appellant/plaintiff would be made a party to the proceedings and a

claim would also be made against the present appellant/plaintiff.

RFA No.28/2018 Page 3 of 5
Surprisingly the respondent no.1/ defendant no.1/Union of India did

not file any proceedings thereafter against the appellant/plaintiff

although it was given liberty to do so in terms of the judgment dated

21.1.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)

No.1845/2008.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply