Delhi High Court quashes Centre's 1987 eviction notice to 'Express' newspapers

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held as arbitrary and malafide the Centre's decision to terminate its lease deed with Express newspapers for the ‘Express Building’ at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg here and quashed the 37-year-old notice seeking ejection of the media house from the premises.

Justice Prathiba M Singh, while dealing with the lawsuits by both the central government and Express newspapers Ltd— filed over three decades ago, said the action of the authorities was an attempt to "muzzle Express newspapers and dry up its source of income." The court nonetheless directed Express newspapers to pay around Rs 64 crore to the Centre as payment towards “conversion charges”, “ground rent” and “additional ground rent” in relation to the building.

“The termination of the lease dated 17th March, 1958 by notice dated 29th September, 1987 and 2nd November, 1987 is arbitrary and mala fide,” it ruled on Friday.

“The re-entry notice to Express newspapers as also the notices to the tenants (in Express building) – both dated 2nd November, 1987 are declared unlawful and illegal. The same are accordingly quashed and set aside,” the court said, while adding that the “Union of India is not entitled to possession of the plot”. The Congress was in power in 1987.

In its lawsuit filed in 1987 in the high court, the Centre had sought possession of the ‘Express Building’ along with damages and other reliefs. The authorities had initially claimed it was liable to recover Rs 17,500 crore as dues from Express newspapers but eventually reduced the claim to Rs 765 crore.

Express newspapers, on the other hand, filed a separate lawsuit in 1988 to assail the notice of re-entry and ejection dated November 2, 1987, issued by Land & Development Officer (L&DO), a body under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. The notices on lease termination and re-entry were eventually stayed by the high court.

The Centre told the court that it had decided to take over the building on account of breach of lease conditions by Express newspapers, such as use of the property for “commercial purpose”, sub-letting and unauthorised construction.

In the 118-page judgement, Justice Singh however opined that the “alleged breaches are in fact not made out from the record”.

The judge further noted that all these issues had already been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in 1985 when it dealt with an earlier “re-entry notice”, and clarified that the Centre could only realise "conversion charges" and "additional ground rent" from the media house and nothing more.

“In the light of such categorical findings, raising these very issues in a fresh notice and thereafter issuing notices of termination and seeking to re-enter is clearly in the face of the judgment of the Supreme Court,” the court stated.

“The issuance of notices to tenants with a direction to them to deposit the rent with the L&DO is a completely malicious act on behalf of the then Government. It was only meant to muzzle Express Newspapers and also dry up its sources of income and nothing more. Thus, the said notices are held to be arbitrary and mala fide." The court further noted that the notice issued on November 2, 1987, was never served upon Express Newspapers which came to know of the same from a news item in another newspaper.

Such conduct of the government of the day is nothing but motivated to say the least, it said.

The court began the judgement with Nelson Mandela’s quote that “A free press is one of the pillars of democracy”, as it noted that the dispute between the parties in the case was a result of the action taken by the then government for the fair and independent role played by the media house during the Emergency period of 1975-1977.

“The present dispute between a well-known media house and the Government has spanned over five decades, witnessing critical historical events such as the Emergency and its aftermath. The dispute erupted as a result of action taken by the then Government in 1977-79, against a media house, for its fair and independent role during the Emergency imposed between the years 1975-1977."