{"id":152740,"date":"2002-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002"},"modified":"2017-05-22T18:06:06","modified_gmt":"2017-05-22T12:36:06","slug":"apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels &#8230; vs New Delhi Municipal Council And &#8230; on 3 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels &#8230; vs New Delhi Municipal Council And &#8230; on 3 April, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 270, 97 (2002) DLT 622, 2002 (63) DRJ 812<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M A Khan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M A Khan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Mahmood Ali Khan, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. This revision petition challenges the order of an<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge dated 6.11.1996 by which he<br \/>\nhas dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner under<br \/>\nSection 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of<br \/>\nUnauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short the Act) and<br \/>\nhas affirmed the order of the Estate Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Briefly the facts are that petitioner Northern<br \/>\nEnterprises Corporation Pvt. Ltd. took on license basis<br \/>\nfrom respondent No. 1 NDMC covered area of 1523 sq.ft.<br \/>\non 8th Floor of a multi storeyed building called Mayur<br \/>\nBhawan, near Connaught Place, New Delhi for a period 2<br \/>\nyears w.e.f. 15.1.1981 at the rate of license fee of<br \/>\nRs. 6.60 per sq.ft. On the expiry of the license period<br \/>\nit was renewed for further period of 5 years w.e.f.<br \/>\n15.1.1983 on the increase rate of license fee of<br \/>\nRs. 10.75 per sq.ft. During the period of said license<br \/>\nthe name of the petitioner company was changed from<br \/>\nNorthern Enterprises Corporation Pvt. Ltd. to Northern<br \/>\nEnterprises Pvt. Ltd. and a fresh certificate of<br \/>\nincorporation was issued and the respondent NDMC was<br \/>\ninformed of this change. In order to meet the<br \/>\nrequirement of Government Financial Institutions the<br \/>\nname of the petitioner company was further changed to<br \/>\nNorthern Enterprises Ltd. and a new certificate of<br \/>\nincorporation was issued on 24.7.1985 and by letter<br \/>\ndated 20.8.1985 the respondent was duly informed of this<br \/>\nchange in the name. But respondent No. 1 took a stand<br \/>\nthat the terms of the license agreed to with the<br \/>\nNorthern Enterprises Corporation Pvt. Ltd. would not be<br \/>\napplicable to the new company though offered to enter<br \/>\ninto a fresh agreement with Northern Enterprises Ltd.<br \/>\nprovided the license fee, was enhanced to Rs. 17.84 per<br \/>\nsq.ft. from the date of the change in the name i.e.<br \/>\nfrom 24.7.1985. The petitioner protested and did not<br \/>\nagree. Respondent No. 1 thereupon filed an application<br \/>\nunder Section 7 of the Act before the Estate Officer for<br \/>\nejectment of the petitioner on the allegation that it<br \/>\nwas in unauthorised occupation of the premises.<br \/>\nRespondent also claimed the enhanced license fee\/damages<br \/>\nbesides interest @15% per annum on the amount of<br \/>\ndamages. In reply to the show cause notice the<br \/>\npetitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Estate<br \/>\nOfficer to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the<br \/>\nAct as the petitioner had not been in unauthorised<br \/>\noccupation of the premises and was not liable to pay<br \/>\ndamages or interest as claimed by respondent No. 1 NDMC.<br \/>\nThe Estate Officer accepted the contention of the<br \/>\npetitioner that the change in the name has not brought<br \/>\nabout change in the identity of the petitioner license<br \/>\nand that the license fee was not payable at enhanced<br \/>\nrate. He further held that the license fee at agreed<br \/>\nrate was payable up to 14.1.1988. He directed the<br \/>\npetitioner to pay arrears of damages @17.84 per sq.ft.<br \/>\nfrom 15.11.1988 to the date of the vacation of the<br \/>\npremises with interest @15% p.a. on the arrears.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The petitioner challenged this order before the<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge in an appeal. Learned<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge dismissed the appeal and<br \/>\naffirmed the order of the Estate Officer. The<br \/>\npetitioner is aggrieved and has filed this revision<br \/>\npetition impugning the order of the learned Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the<br \/>\npetitioner has already vacated the premises on<br \/>\n05.08.1989 and has also paid the license fee. He stated<br \/>\nthat the petitioner was challenging the order of the<br \/>\nlearned Additional District Judge by which he had<br \/>\naffirmed the order of the Estate Officer awarding<br \/>\ninterest @15% on the arrears. Referring to provision of<br \/>\nSub-section (2A) of Section 7 of the Act, it is argued<br \/>\nthat it is clearly stipulated that the interest on the<br \/>\narrears of license fee\/damages etc. may be awarded by<br \/>\nthe Estate Officer at a rate &#8220;prescribed&#8221; and the<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge has failed to appreciate that<br \/>\nno rate of interest has been prescribed yet under the<br \/>\nrules framed there under. It was also argued that the<br \/>\nrules framed in accordance with Section 18 of the said<br \/>\nAct did not prescribe any rate of interest, therefore,<br \/>\nthe Estate Officer had no power or jurisdiction to award<br \/>\nany interest whatsoever and direct the petitioner to pay<br \/>\nit. He urged that the Additional District Judge had<br \/>\nacted without jurisdiction and with material<br \/>\nirregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction, therefore,<br \/>\nthe order is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1<br \/>\nNDMC contended that the Estate Officer was empowered by<br \/>\nSub-section (2) and (2A) of Section 7 of the Act to<br \/>\naward interest on the arrears of rent\/damages etc. He<br \/>\njustified the order and prayed that the petition was<br \/>\nliable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. This revision petition is filed to assail the<br \/>\norder of the Additional District Judge which he passed<br \/>\nin an appeal filed against the order of the Estate<br \/>\nOfficer under Section 9 of the Act. This order cannot<br \/>\nbe challenged in a revision petition filed under Section<br \/>\n115 of the CPC. The Additional District Judge deciding<br \/>\nthe appeal was acting as a tribunal and not as a court<br \/>\nsubordinate to the High Court, therefore, Section 115 of<br \/>\nthe CPC is not available to the petitioner for assailing<br \/>\nthis order.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. However, this petition was filed on 10.2.1997 and<br \/>\nit was admitted for hearing as a revision petition by<br \/>\nthis court on 26.10.1999, therefore, in my view it will<br \/>\nbe travesty of justice if the petition is dismissed on<br \/>\ntechnicalities at this late stage. The respondent has<br \/>\nnot questioned the maintainability of this petition<br \/>\nunder Section 115 of the CPC. This Court even otherwise<br \/>\nhas ample power to convert this petition into a civil<br \/>\nmain petition and consider it as such. Therefore<br \/>\nwithout passing a formal order for registering this<br \/>\npetition as CM(Main) petition, since it would further<br \/>\ndelay in the disposal to an already over delayed case.<br \/>\nI treat this petition under Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India in the peculiar facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case. But I make it clear that it<br \/>\nshall not be treated as a precedent in other cases.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. The dispute raised is also otherwise limited to<br \/>\nthe question of awarding of interest on the amount of<br \/>\narrears of license fee\/damages payable by the petitioner<br \/>\nto the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. Only question raised in this petition is whether<br \/>\nthe Estate Officer has power and jurisdiction to award<br \/>\ninterest on the arrears of rent\/damages under Section<br \/>\n7(2A) of the Act before the rate of simple interest is<br \/>\nprescribed?\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. The Estate Officer is given power by Sub-section<br \/>\n(2) read with Sub-section (2A) of Section 7 of the Act<br \/>\nto award simple interest on the arrears of rent or<br \/>\ndamages payable by the unauthorised occupant under<br \/>\nSub-section (2). Being relevant, Sub-sections (2) and<br \/>\n(2A) are being extracted below:-\n<\/p>\n<p> (2) Where any person is, or has at any<br \/>\ntime been, in unauthorised occupation of<br \/>\nany public premises, the estate officer<br \/>\nmay, having regard to such principles of<br \/>\nassessment of damages as may be<br \/>\nprescribed, assess the damages on<br \/>\naccount of the use and occupation of<br \/>\nsuch premises and may, by order, require<br \/>\nthat person to pay the damages within<br \/>\nsuch time and in such Installments as may<br \/>\nbe specified in the order.\n<\/p>\n<p> (2A) &#8220;While making an order under<br \/>\nSub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), the<br \/>\nestate officer may direct that the<br \/>\narrears of rent or, as the case may be,<br \/>\ndamages shall be payable together with<br \/>\nsimple interest at such rate as may be<br \/>\nprescribed, not being a rate exceeding<br \/>\nthe current rate of interest within the<br \/>\nmeaning of the Interest Act, 1978.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. The maximum rate of interest awardable is the<br \/>\n&#8216;current rate of interest&#8217; as defined in the Interest<br \/>\nAct. The Interest Act defines the expression &#8220;current<br \/>\nrate of interest&#8221; by clause (b) of Section 2, which is<br \/>\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;Current rate of interest&#8221; means<br \/>\nthe highest of the maximum rates at which<br \/>\ninterest may be paid on different classes<br \/>\nof deposits (other than those maintained<br \/>\nin savings or those maintained by<br \/>\ncharitable or religious institutions) by<br \/>\ndifferent classes of scheduled banks in<br \/>\naccordance with the directions given or<br \/>\nissued to banking companies generally by<br \/>\nthe Reserve Bank of India under the<br \/>\nBanking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of<br \/>\n1949).\n<\/p>\n<p> Explanation.&#8211;In this clause,<br \/>\n&#8220;scheduled bank&#8221; means a bank, not being<br \/>\na co-operative bank, transacting any<br \/>\nbusiness authorised by the Banking<br \/>\nRegulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949)&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. Short argument of counsel for petitioner is that<br \/>\nthe rate of interest has not been &#8220;prescribed&#8221; in the<br \/>\nRules or otherwise so far, therefore, the Estate Officer<br \/>\nhas no power and jurisdiction to award interest on the<br \/>\namount of the arrears of rent and the damages which is<br \/>\npayable under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act.<br \/>\nThis argument has no force. Reading of Sub-section (2A)<br \/>\nof Section 7 of the Act and the expression &#8220;Current rate of<br \/>\ninterest&#8221; as defined in clause (b) of Section 2 of the<br \/>\nInterest Act conjointly, it is menifest that the Estate<br \/>\nOfficer has discretion to award simple interest on the<br \/>\narrears of rent\/damages recoverable from an unauthorised<br \/>\noccupant. But the rate of interest is not to exceed the<br \/>\nrate which scheduled banks pay on bank deposits (other<br \/>\nthan certain specified classes of deposit) as per<br \/>\ndirection of Reserve Bank of India. The jurisdiction of<br \/>\nthe Estate Officer is not ousted merely because the rate<br \/>\nof simple interest has not been &#8216;prescribed&#8217;. Even if<br \/>\nit is prescribed, the maximum rate of interest can not<br \/>\nexceed the bank rate as envisaged in clause (b) of<br \/>\nSection 2 of the Interest Act. In my view the absence<br \/>\nto specify the rate of interest by Rules or appropriate<br \/>\nauthority cannot nullify the legislative intent. The<br \/>\nstatutory provision cannot be held to be a dead letter<br \/>\ntill such time the interest rate is prescribed in the<br \/>\nabsence of clear words in the Act which may show such an<br \/>\nintention on the part of the legislature. I am unable<br \/>\nto find such intention from the provisions of the Act.<br \/>\nSub-section (2A) of Section 7 of the Act does not show<br \/>\nthat on account of inaction on the part of appropriate<br \/>\nauthority the legislative intent would remain in<br \/>\nabeyance. In the absence of the prescribed interest<br \/>\nrate the Estate Officer may award simple interest at the<br \/>\nrate which is payable on bank deposits at relevant time<br \/>\nand is considered fair and reasonable by him in the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case with the only<br \/>\nstipulation that such interest rate shall in no case<br \/>\nexceed the current rate of interest within the meaning<br \/>\nof Interest Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. According to the petitioner the rate of simple<br \/>\ninterest on ordinary bank deposits on the relevant date<br \/>\nwas 10% p.a. Respondent No. 1 has not been able to show<br \/>\nthat on the deposits mentioned in clause (b) of Section<br \/>\n2 of the Interest Act the scheduled banks in accordance<br \/>\nwith the guidelines of the RBI were paying simple<br \/>\ninterest at the rate higher than 10% p.a. It seems to<br \/>\nbe a reasonable and fair rate of simple interest. The<br \/>\norder of the Estate Officer fixing interest at the rate<br \/>\nof 15% per annum is manifestly unreasonable and not in<br \/>\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. For the reasons stated above, there appears<br \/>\npatent error in law in the order and exercise of<br \/>\njurisdiction by Estate Officer and the learned<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge in awarding interest @15% p.a.<br \/>\non the arrears of license fee\/damages payable by the<br \/>\npetitioner to respondent No. 1 till 5.8.1989 on which<br \/>\ndate the premises was vacated. It is appropriate that<br \/>\nthis court invoked its superintendance powers and<br \/>\nextraordinary jurisdiction vested by Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution to intervene and correct menifest error in<br \/>\nthe order of the learned Additional District Judge<br \/>\nimpugned in this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. Though both the parties have filed the statements<br \/>\nof accounts but they are at variance. The respondent<br \/>\nshall calculate the amount of simple interest payable by<br \/>\nthe petitioner in terms of the order of Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Judge @10% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. <\/p>\n<p> 16. The petition stands disposed of accordingly<br \/>\nleaving parties to bear their own cost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels &#8230; vs New Delhi Municipal Council And &#8230; on 3 April, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 270, 97 (2002) DLT 622, 2002 (63) DRJ 812 Author: M A Khan Bench: M A Khan JUDGMENT Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This revision petition challenges the order of an [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-152740","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council And ... on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council And ... on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-22T12:36:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels &#8230; vs New Delhi Municipal Council And &#8230; on 3 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T12:36:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2014,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council And ... on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T12:36:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels &#8230; vs New Delhi Municipal Council And &#8230; on 3 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council And ... on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council And ... on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-22T12:36:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels &#8230; vs New Delhi Municipal Council And &#8230; on 3 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T12:36:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002"},"wordCount":2014,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002","name":"Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council And ... on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T12:36:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/apeejay-surrendra-park-hotels-vs-new-delhi-municipal-council-and-on-3-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Apeejay Surrendra Park Hotels &#8230; vs New Delhi Municipal Council And &#8230; on 3 April, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152740","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=152740"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152740\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152740"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152740"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152740"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}