IN THE COURT OF SH.
SATYABRATA PANDA, ADJ, PATIALA HOUSE COURT
DISTRICT (NEW DELHI)
PPA NO. 7/2020
IN RE:-
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. …..APPELLANT
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ORS … RESPONDENTS
INDEX
S.NO PARTICULAR PAGE
NO.
1. Reply on Behalf of Appellant to Counter
Affifavit filed by Respondents.
Revisionist
Through
JATIN SHARMA, [E.N. No. D/951/2012]
Advocate for Revisionist
For Jurist & Jurist International Law Firm
New Delhi (Advocates and Legal Consultants)
Date: __/09-2022 E-26, 2nd Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048
M: 9811881981
www.juristandjurist.com
Email: [email protected]
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATYABRATA PANDA, ADJ, PATIALA HOUSE COURT
DISTRICT (NEW DELHI)
PPA NO. 7/2020
IN RE:-
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. …..APPELLANT
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ORS … RESPONDENTS
REPLY ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT TO COUNTER AFFIFAVIT FILED BY
RESPONDENTS
MOST RESPECTULLY SHOWETH:
I, Surendra Singh Selal S/o Sh. Khali Singh Selal, aged About 57 Years, R/O Sector-
62, Noida , Uttar Pradesh presently working as regional Manager with the
respondent corporation having its regional office at 10 th floor, Hansalya Building,
Barakhamba Road, Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I being presently working as Regional manager with the appellant
corporation and also is authorized vide General Power of Attorney
2. That it is denied that the appeal filed by the appellant is nothing but an abuse
of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is submitted that
the impugned order passed on 17.01.2020 by learned Estate officer has passing
two different orders on the same suit property.
3. That it is denied that admittedly there is no subsisting lease deed between the
parties and the respondent LIC was well within their rights to terminate the
tenancy which has been rightly done as per law. It is matter of record.
4. That it is wrong and denied that the Estate Officer (EO) has passed a speaking
order after taking into consideration all the facts on record and evidence brought
on record by both the parties. It is submitted that Estate Officer saying completely
biased and also without giving opportunity to submit the final arguments/
submission by the appellant.
5. That it is denied that even the EO has even granted damages only @25%
increase every 3 years which was even going on as per the lease deed which was
never got renewed by the appellant. It is submitted that the EO without giving
opportunity to respondent/ appellant to file an argument and also passing two
different order for same property.
6. That it is wrong and denied that the appellant was granted ample opportunities
to make oral arguments but in spite of the same it never came forward to address
the arguments and after giving opportunities the matter was reserved for order
and a very speaking order taking into consideration all defence raised in the reply,
evidence and documents placed on record by the parties the impugned orders
were passed. It is submitted by the appellant that the appellant in its defense filed
one common written statement evidence was led in common, admission and
denial of documents and cross examination done accordingly.
7. That it is denied that even the notice for termination of tenancy was served
which has even expired by efflux of time and it is true that no fresh leased deed
was ever executed between the parties and as such the parties were governed by
the lease deed and the appellant cannot that the tenancy is still continuing.
8. That it is denied that the appellant has not placed on record any document
which can point out to the fact that the tenancy is still subsisting. It is matter of
recorded.
9. That it is totally denied that even otherwise the respondent is well within its
right to either continue the tenancy by way of a fresh lease deed or to not
continue with the tenancy of the appellant and the appellant cannot dictate its
terms of tenancy to the respondent. It is even denied that the appellant has also
taken any positive steps to get the tenancy renewed by way of a fresh lease deed.
It is even denied various meetings were held between the parties top officials but
could not reach to any amicable resolution and now the appellant has no right
and little to remain in the premises in question.
10. That it is denied that even the appellant was neither paying the agreed rent in
time nor has taken any steps to vacate the premise in question and also denied a
habitual defaulter in making the payment nor as such its tenancy was terminated
vide legal notice and proceeding before the Estate Officer were initiated.
11. That it is denied that the order passed by the Estate Officer were passed after
appreciating the facts and evidence on record.
12. That it is denied that both the orders of the Estate Officer do not suffer from
any illegality and have been passes by appreciating all the evidence available in
the record. It is submitted that the Estate Officer had passes two order for same
suit of property without given opportunity to the appellant to argument on the
behalf of appellant.
13. That it is denied that even the rate of damages awarded by the Estate Officer
was on the basis of a23% increase and not as per the comparative lease deed
which could have been much more as such there is no reason to assail the same
by the appellant. It is also wrong and denied that the appellant has also not
placed on record any comparative lease deed did not produce any document to
disprove the evidence brought on record by the LIC. It is submitted by the
appellant that the appellant in its defense filed one common written statement
evidence was led in common, admission and denial of documents and cross
examination done accordingly and also matter of record.
14. That it is wrong and denied that the grounds raised in the present appeal are
not tenable in law as there is no illegality in the orders passed by the Estate
Officer. it is submitted by the appellant the appeal filed by the appellant is true
and correct because the respondents company without giving opportunity to
arguments given the decision or pass the order in favor of the respondent after
that the appellant filed the appeal to set-aside the order dated on 17.01.2020.
15. That it is denied that the present appeal is not maintainable in the eyes of law
as damages awarded in favor of the respondent are not unreasonable or
excessive and even the eviction order is absolutely correct and passed with
application of judicial mind as such the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. It
is submitted by the appellant that the appellant is neither an unauthorirized
occupational nor the had defaulted in payment of lease rent and as such
impugned order of learned Estate Officer Dated 17.01.2020 under section 5(1) of
the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) act, 1971 for vacation
and payment of fictional arrears is liable to be recalled and withdrawn.
In view of the above it is therefore most respectfully prayer that the present
appeal being to allow the present appeal against the impugned order of learned
Estate Officer dated 17.01.2020. and such other or further order as may be
deemed fit and proper be passed.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this… day of September 2022, that the contents of the above
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge derived from the records of the
respondent corporation and the legal averments are true and correct as per
knowledge received and believed to be correct. No part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed therefore
DEPONENT
