-Report by Sejal Jethva

The parties involved in this case are SUBHASH SOLANKI (Appellant) and DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD & ORS. (Respondents). The appellant is allegedly occupying the store illegally and it is claimed that he continued to run his business out of the aforementioned shop after his father passed away and that no one else took over the operation.


The business in dispute was reportedly given to the appellant’s father in 1976 when he was just 14 years old. According to the claim, the appellant was not aware of the terms and circumstances of the allotment at the time of his father’s death in 2009, and as a result, he was unable to submit an application to change the name of the business in question as his father’s legitimate heir. According to the claim, the father of the appellant died away on July 1, 2010, and that day the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board was established.

It is claimed that the appellant kept operating his company out of the aforementioned shop following the death of the father and that no one else took over the operation.


The skilled attorney for the appellant claims that just a possession slip has been given to the appellant’s father in relation to the store in question, and no official allocation letter has been issued in his favour. It is argued that the appellant was unable to request a shop’s modification since he was not aware of the terms and circumstances of the allotment.

The knowledgeable Attorney for the Appellant further asserts that there is no disputing the fact that the Appellant’s father owned the store in question, hence the DUSIB had no difficulty transferring ownership of the shop to the Appellant.

The learned attorney representing the appellant claims that the DUSIB’s policy should be to grant mutation in favour of the legal heirs if there is no dispute regarding who is the initial allottee’s legal heirs so that they can make a living from the store or property that had been allocated to the initial allottee.


In contrast, Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, knowledgeable Counsel representing the DUSIB, argued that not only had it been established that the original allottee had entered into an agreement to hire or transfer the appellant to the shop in question, but also that the shop had undergone significant unpermitted construction. The knowledgeable attorney for the DUSIB further notes that shop No. 38, which is currently occupied by the appellant, was also discovered to have been amalgamated with shop No. 37, which is obviously against the terms of allotment and the policy under which the shop was initially allotted to the allottee.

The knowledgeable Attorney for DUSIB also asserts that following the death of his father, the appellant never requested a formal allocation of the store in issue from the authorities.

The evidence on file demonstrates that the Appellant was the subject of proceedings under Sections 41/42 of the DUSIB Act, 2010 for eviction from the aforementioned store. Records show that the in-issue store was given on a licensee fee basis and that the sale or purchase of the shop was prohibited under the terms and circumstances.


1. The appellant in this case currently resides in Shop No.38 Block-4, Dakshinpuri Extn., New Delhi, and his wife Meena Solanki currently resides in Shop No.37 Block-4, Dakshinpuri Extn., New Delhi. According to documents, one Sh. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Giasi Ram was given this business on a licensee fee basis in 1976. The sale or purchase of the shop is prohibited under the terms and conditions. During a study by the DUSIB survey unit, it was discovered that the shop had been sold to the original allottee, that it had been combined with Shop No. 37, and that there had been extensive unlawful development up to five floors and encroachment on departmental land. The store is being illegally occupied by

2. The learned Single Judge declined to overturn the authorities’ contemporaneous conclusions. The following are the briefly listed requirements for allocation:

  1. “a) The sole basis for the allocation was a license;
  2. The allotment was made for commercial use and not for residential purposes;
  3. the allottee(s) do not have any right to transfer, alienate, or in any other way dispose of the allotted shop(s) in favour of a third party;
  4. the allottee(s) do not have any right to carry out structural additions or alterations in the premises without prior written permission from the DUSIB; and
  5. as a matter of public policy

3. As a result, the appeal is rejected together with any outstanding applications, if any.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3ZWH881

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *