BRIEF OF THE JUDGEMENT

 Shri Jai Singh & Virendra Singh VERSUS DTC (erstwhile

tenant) JD- 2 North-DMC (illegal sub-tenant)
 Application seeking directions re: compliance with Supreme
Court orders

FACTS OF THE CASE

 By judgment dated 7.11.2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ordered a time-bound inquiry into mesne profits (the profits
and compensation that is given by the illegal occupant to the
rightful owner) for the suit premises (plot-2) for the period
11.11.1999 onwards
 An inquiry was held under which the misrepresentation of
the MCD were found so on that note the SC observed that
the inquiry was not done in the right directions. The lordship
issued specific directions as to how the inquiry to be held.
 The directions were not followed by the respondents and
thus an application again was issued in the SC but even
then, the reply by the JD-2 MCD did not comply with the
orders of the court and was contrary to the court. JD-1 DTC
neither complied, nor filed a reply. However, at the hearing of
1.03.2021 it simply “adopted”2 JD-2 North-DMC’s 1.03.2021
Reply.
 There are various failures that were made due to non-
compliance to the SC by the MCD- that are stated further in
 The premises in question – being plot-no. 2, Jhandewalan,
Block-B, measuring 10,000 sq. yds. [with 48,440 sq. ft of
superstructure] – was let-out on 15.04.1948 @ Rs. 3,500 per
month. In 1950-51, for these tenancy premises, there was
litigation between the parties [GoI vs Bharat Singh]. Matter
went up to the High Court.
 35 years later, on 5.02.1986, Eviction Petition was filed
against tenant [JD-1 DTC] and sub-tenant [JD-2 MCD]. 13¾
years later, on 11.11.1999 Eviction Order was passed. Till
then (for 51½ years), the rent remained at @ Rs. 3,500 per
month. After certain appeals, etc. the Supreme Court on
23.09.2010 upheld the 11.11.1999 Eviction Order.
 The SC observed that in the case the eviction order is passed
by the trial court on 11.11.1999 thus the right to attain the
mesne profits arised from the same date. Directing the Trial
Court to carry out this exercise in a maximum period of four
months from the date of communication of this order and
both the parties will fully cooperate and assist the Court to
arrive at a conclusion and would not seek adjournments.
 Consequent to judgment, inquiry by ARC into mesne profits
commenced. On MCD’s submissions, there were certain
orders, wherefore, the matter was taken to the Supreme
Court, which passed 6.03.2020 Orders. Again, during May-
June 2020, on MCD’s misrepresentations and other wrongs,
orders were passed by the ARC, wherefore Supreme Court
was approached. On 1.09.2020 and 15.09.2020 the Supreme
Court set-aside these [ARC’s] orders and issued specific
directions to parties to comply-Now turning to the second
aspect of mesne profits, we are of the view that the same are
being determined in pursuance to directions of this Court,
but the manner of enquiry does not seem to be going in the
right direction. It is the Court of the Additional Rent
Controller. There is no question of Court fee involved. What
is required is that where clear titles are available, material
should be filed by the appellant and the respondent to
substantiate as to what would be the amount payable for
property No.2 and not based on adjacent plots 1 and 3 which
already subject matter of dispute. emphasis added We would
now expect the Additional Rent Controller to proceed in
 terms of our observations which we have made as aforesaid
to determine the mesne profits. In view of our aforesaid
observations, any direction passed by the Additional Rent
Controller contrary to the aforesaid stands set aside.
 However, ongoing through these [as exemplars] and
preparing calculations to substantiate the amount payable
for plot-2; JD-2 MCD felt that if they complied with the
Supreme Court orders, there will straightaway be a Decree
(on their own admission) for over 50 crores at the very
minimal, plus interest.
 Despite the liability being in crores, the officers handling the
matter in JD-1 DTC and in JD-2 MCD, did not let the higher
levels be apprised of the Supreme Court orders. They knew
that any flouting of orders would never have been
countenanced. As there was non-compliance with Supreme
Court orders, EOHs [DHs] filed application dated
20.01.2021–a Reminder.
 The reminder stated the Ld. Counsels for JD No. 1 and 2
intend to file replies to the said application. The matter is
adjourned for filing of replies to the application with advance
copies of the same to the decree holders at least 15 days
prior to next date of hearing.
 The refusal to comply with the Supreme Court orders, and
the statements in the 1.03.2021 Reply, coming from a
Municipal body are simply Shocking were a direct affront to
the Rule of Law.
 The Supreme Court order was specific – both appellant
[EOHs] and the respondent [MCD] had to file material to
substantiate the amount payable for property No. 2. 3
Material to substantiate – means that both the parties file (1)
exemplar Rent Deeds; and (2) their versions as to the claim
about per month and interest calculation, so that the court
inquiring into the matter, by looking at the exemplars and
 the rival versions of material filed by each, can come to the
right conclusion.
 EOH [DH]s had already filed: (1) 49 registered rent deeds;
and (2) calculations to substantiate the amount payable for
Plot-2. There was nothing further for the EOHs to do. 33. It
was for JD-2 MCD and JD-1 DTC to file. They had before
them the template (sample) of that filed by the EOHs on
22.06.2020 [total 5 sheets].Despite (with assistance of their
property-tax department) having: (1) reached 100s of
registered rent deeds of Jhandewalan; and (2) made
calculations of the rentals prevalent in the area, JDs have
not substantiated (given their version) of what according to
them [MCD] is payable as mesne profits for plot-2 – or even
respond to Annexures.
 JD-2 MCD [for the period 11.11.1999 to 2.07.2008, and
thereafter?] was misleading this Court (of ARC) to disregard
the 7.11.2019 Supreme Court judgment and instead follow
the High Court (interim) order dated 2.07.2008–another
affront.
 JD-2 MCD has asked this Court to calculate [base] the
mesne profits on what they [MCD] had ‘earned as profit’ 13
from the premises in question, it becomes necessary to state
details. Pursuant to the 11.11.1999 Eviction Order, although
six rooms had been taken possession of by EOHs on
14.11.2000, MCD never allowed entry into the premises by
posting their guards at the main steel gates, with the result
that the EOHs could not enter those rooms or even see what
was going on inside the tenancy premises. However, when
due to MCD’s negligence a 7-year-old boy, Badal died on
18.11.2016, under the High Court orders, photographs were
allowed to be taken on 9.12.2016 and taken at 18:00 hrs.
More photographs were taken after the Supreme Court
 judgment of 7.11.2019. These reveal an ‘answer’ to the above
plea – of ‘profit earned’ – raised by JD-2 MCD.
 The annexures that are attached to the document are -
pictures of how the MCD has stacked junked vehicles one on
top of the other in a dangerous manner just to block the
courtyard of the premises-in-suit and to deprive EOHs user
of the same and only junked vehicles had been stacked in
order to send a ‘message’ to the EOH [DH]
 The respondent were misleading the court so the supreme
court stated the case of Roshan Lal Vegetable Products vs
Param International is also binding on the MCD in which it
was held that mesne profits for the period after termination
of tenancy and before a suit for ejectment have one
connotation but mesne profits for the period after the filing of
a suit for ejectment or a decree for eviction are to be still
higher so that incentives to delay or noncompliance with the
eviction order do not survive.
 The Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action
vs Union of India17 para 143 to 197 reiterated the
importance of restitution of which mesne profits are part.
These – mesne profits – are part of the inherent jurisdiction
of the court.
 It was submitted that qua mesne profits, the message must
be sent out that the litigation is neither to be caused nor
delayed. This requires assessment at a little higher than
market rates to prevent wastage of court time for meritless
litigation. Thus, the supreme court issued some specific
directions- What is required is that where clear titles are
available, material should be filed by the appellant and the
respondent to substantiate as to what would be the amount
payable for property No.
 MCD flouted the order and refused to place [despite
availability with them]: (1) exemplars from within
 Jhandewalan; and (2) a calculation sheet (or their version) to
substantiate the amount payable for Plot-2
 In an inquiry subsequent to Decree (Eviction Order) – as
distinct from originating litigation, it is for both parties to
place their respective versions along with material to
substantiate the amount payable for Plot-2. The EOH [DH]s
did so on 22.06.2020. JDs have not done so despite Supreme
Court directions. So far it was about failure of MCD (& DTC).
There is ‘more’ that must be pointed out. Further, from the
contents of JD-2 MCD’s 1.03.2021 Reply and its ‘adoption’
[on 1.03.2021] by JD-1 DTC, it seems that the top-levels in
JDs have not even been apprised of the directions as ordered
by the Supreme Court, and the 20.01.2021 application of the
EOH [DH]s. 66. Had the CMD JD-1 / Commissioner JD-2
been apprised, the contents would never have been cleared
by any of the two. From the aforesaid, it is obvious the
despite the liability being over a 100 crores, the officers
handling the matter in JD-1 DTC or in JD-2 MCD did not let
the CMD-DTC and Commissioner-MCD be apprised of it.
Because it is doubtful that flouting of Supreme Court orders
would have been countenanced by either the JD-1 DTC’s
CMD or JD-2 MCD’s Commissioner.
 It is now for the: (1) CMD-DTC; and (2) Commissioner-MCD,
to consider the record, the facts, the Supreme Court
judgments & orders and the (1.03.2021) reply and pass
appropriate departmental orders on what is to be done before
next date of hearing (13.04.2021) failing which the law will
take its own course. It is not only a matter of ensuring that
Supreme Court orders are complied with. Keeping in view the
background as also the contents it is necessary to reply.
 Notices be also issued to: CMD JD-1 DTC [Shri Vijay Kumar
Bidhuri, IAS]; and ii. Commissioner JD-2 North DMC [Shri
Sanjay Goel, IAS]. 2. On receiving a copy of this application,
CMD JD-1 DTC, as also Commissioner JD-2 MCD, will
themselves ensure: (1) compliance with the Supreme Court
orders and the law; and (2) withdrawal of the objectionable
portions in the 1.03.2021 Reply; and (3) file their respective
Affidavits in support.