New Delhi: Delhi’s 54-year-old Akshara Theatre has received a reprieve from Delhi High Court , which Friday stayed eviction proceedings initiated by govt after the theatre challenged the authorities’ decision to invoke the re-entry clause under its lease deed, signed in 1984.
The theatre further contended that no effective hearing had taken place before the estate officer and that on Sept 24, the matter had merely been reserved for orders without any indication that final arguments had been concluded.
Noting the circumstances in which the proceedings had unfolded, the court directed that the eviction order “shall remain in abeyance” until further orders. The pendency of the present petition was within the knowledge of the respondent, and the nature and contours of the challenge stood duly set out in the petition. Notwithstanding the pendency of these proceedings, it appears that the estate officer proceeded to pass a final order in the matter,” Justice Harish Vaidyanathan observed. The petitioners contended that the authority relied largely on written submissions and continued proceedings under Public Premises Act without affording a proper hearing.
The high court also took a dim view of the estate officer proceeding to pass a final eviction order despite being aware that the matter was already under challenge before the court. Represented by senior advocate Sanjay Jain and advocate Vidur Mohan, Akshara Theatre argued that it had not been given a meaningful opportunity to present its case before the estate officer. “This court takes note of the fact that it is only in the course of the proceedings today that it has been apprised of the passing of the eviction order.
The theatre had moved the high court against an eviction notice served in March directing it to vacate the premises on the grounds that govt urgently required the land. In its petition, Akshara Theatre contended that Land & Development Office (L&DO) could not simply rely on the re-entry provision in the lease deed and evict it without first demonstrating a clear public purpose, citing the Supreme Court ruling in the Nusli Neville Wadia case. Jain submitted that the passing of the eviction order during the pendency of the high court proceedings warranted judicial intervention. He argued that the petitioners should have been given an effective opportunity to place evidence on record to substantiate their case.