Madhu Dhingra vs. Bhopal Development Authority

Held

The Court held that the possession of the petitioners was illegal from the beginning as they were sub-tenants of a property that was sublet in contravention of the allotment conditions. The dismissal of the civil suit filed by the original allottee further negated any claim the M.P. Women Entrepreneur Association had, and consequently, any right the petitioners might have derived. The Court found that the petitioners failed to raise an arguable defence in response to the notice issued by the BDA. The reply submitted by the petitioners merely stated that rent was deposited at one point and demanded proof, which was insufficient to establish a right to retain possession or to necessitate a detailed inquiry. Therefore, the summary procedure adopted by the Chief Executive Officer for passing the eviction order was deemed valid. The Court found no good reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 15.02.2021 and 21.07.2020, and the mesne profit calculated thereafter. The Court directed that the mesne profit, including rent, interest, and GST, be recoverable as land revenue and permitted the BDA to take coercive steps for eviction. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, who were sub-tenants of a hall allotted by the Bhopal Development Authority (BDA) to the M.P. Women Entrepreneur Association, challenged orders demanding exorbitant rent and interest, and seeking to set aside eviction orders. The original allotment prohibited subletting. The M.P. Women Entrepreneur Association sublet the hall to the petitioners, leading to the cancellation of the allotment. A civil suit filed by the Association was dismissed, and the BDA initiated proceedings against the sub-tenants. The petitioners claimed to have paid some rent and argued for a right to occupy. The BDA issued notices for eviction due to illegal possession and non-payment of dues. The petitioners responded to a notice dated 19.10.2020, denying illegal possession and demanding proof, but did not raise an arguable defence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, as sub-tenants of an illegally sublet property, have any right to retain possession of the shops in question, considering the original allotment prohibited subletting and the civil suit filed by the original allottee was dismissed? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the allotment terms and the effect of the civil suit dismissal). 2. Whether the Bhopal Development Authority (BDA) was required to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing an order of eviction, even if they were considered encroachers? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice and the status of the petitioners). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they had been in possession for a long time and had paid some rent, implying a right to occupy. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Padmavati Devi, Thummala Krishna Rao, and Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh to assert that even encroachers are entitled to a reasonable opportunity of hearing and that summary procedures cannot be adopted if an arguable defence is made out. Respondent's (BDA) Arguments: The BDA contended that the petitioners' possession was illegal from the outset due to the subletting, which violated the allotment conditions. They argued that the civil suit dismissal further weakened any claim by the original allottee and, by extension, the sub-tenants. The BDA also argued that the petitioners' reply to the notice for eviction did not raise an arguable defence, making the summary procedure adopted by the Chief Executive Officer valid.