Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. v. Barefoot Holidays India Pvt. Ltd.
(2022) 291 DLT 711
In the High Court of Delhi
WP(C) 10445/2021 and CM App. 32109/2021
Before Justice Anu Malhotra
Decided on July 13, 2022

Relevancy of the Case: Appeal against the condonation of delay when the petitioner served multiple notices through speed post and email and the respondent failed to respond

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Section 4(3), 5, 9(2), 7, 7(2))
• The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971 (Rule 4)
• The Constitution of India, 1950 (Section 142)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The court passed an order on August 8, 2019, directing the respondent to pay the sum of ₹27.85 lakhs along with other sums. The petitioner was responsible for serving the notice to the respondents through speed post and email. The respondents had to file an appeal within 12 days of serving the notice.
• On September 25, 2020, the respondents filed for an appeal against the notice and a condonation for 9 9-day delay in filing the appeal. They submitted that they had only become aware of the order on August 28, 2020.
• On August 24, 2021, the District Court allowed the appeal and passed condonation of the delay in appeal, exercising the power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.
• The petitioners have filed this writ petition to set aside the above order in PPA 11/2020.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner argued that there was a delay of 203 days, not 9 days, in filing the appeal. The respondent had received the order as early as November 20, 2019. The petitioner delivered the order through speed post and multiple emails. Thus, they complied with Section 4(3) of the Act and Rule 4 of the associated Rules.
• The respondent’s counsel argued that due to the brief 12-day period to file an appeal under the Act, the estate officer must ensure prompt and proper service of the order. He further stressed the petitioner’s non-compliance with Section 4(3) of the Act and Rule 4 of the associated Rules. The counsel also emphasised that the order wasn’t served as required, even if it’s assumed (though not admitted) that service through email occurred.

Opinion of the Bench

• Considering the non-compliance of the proviso to section 9(2)(b) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the court did not lean in favour of remanding the matter back to the appellate authority.
• Further, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court deems it inappropriate to set aside the order dated August 24, 2021, in PPA 11/2020, condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal.

Final Decision

• The bench dismissed the petition and ordered no further action on CM Appl. 32109/2021.

Aditi Mangesh Sawant, an undergraduate student at NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law, Mumbai, and Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, prepared this case summary during their internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2024.