Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Friday, quashed a 47-year-old eviction notice against the Indian Express Newspaper, deeming it a deliberate attempt to suppress the free press and deplete the paper’s financial resources. The court termed the eviction notices as arbitrary and mala fide and therefore were invalid. However, the court further directed the newspaper to pay Rs. 64,03,007.44/- as ground rent. 

The bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh held, “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 only charges that are to be paid are conversion charges, additional ground rent and ground rent which is determined as a total sum of Rs.64,03,007.44/- inclusive of interest @18% p.a. for the years when they became due”, the court further remarked. 

Express Newspapers was initially allotted plots 1 and 2 in New Delhi, but at the request of Prime Minister Nehru, these were relinquished for the construction of Gandhi Memorial Hall. Instead, they were given plots 9 and 10, with a lease agreement finalized in 1954. During construction, an underground sewer pipeline was discovered, necessitating changes in the building plans. A revised allotment was made in 1956, designating specific areas for building construction and open space.

Express Newspapers sought permission to use part of the building for non-newspaper purposes. This was granted in 1960, allowing commercial use. Further construction and changes were approved in the late 1970s, including the relocation of the sewer line and additional building approvals.

After a change in government in 1980, re-entry notices were issued, challenging Express Newspapers' use of the property. These were contested in the Supreme Court. In 1986, the government issued a show cause notice listing several alleged violations, including unauthorized construction, misuse of the property, and financial demands.

The Newspaper responded by questioning the government's claims, seeking clarification on the legal grounds, and requesting details on similar cases. The dispute culminated in the government filing a suit against Express Newspapers in 1987.

Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid and Sandeep Sethi with Advocates Amit Agarwal and Bhawani Gupta, representing the Express Newspaper, submitted that Express Newspapers was specifically targeted by the then Government for its anti-emergency stance during the years 1977 to 1979.

Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid and Sandeep Sethi asserted that the Show Cause notice issued on 10th March 1980 was thus an act of retribution. Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid and Sandeep Sethi argued that the termination of the lease directly contradicted the restraint order issued by the Supreme Court. He argued that the impugned notices amounted to an abuse of power, to assert that the perpetual lease granted over the land could not be terminated merely due to sub-letting.

Standing Counsel Kirtiman Singh with Advocates Aryan Agrawal, A. Subba Rao, A.T. Rao and Meera Bhatia, representing the Ministry of Urban Development (L&DO), asserted that Express Newspapers should have applied to the Union of India for permission to change the user and for the payment of the necessary additional ground rent and conversion charges. Standing Counsel Kirtiman Singh argued that this obligation was binding, yet they did not seek the required permission from the Union of India.

The court observed that the notices and efforts by the then government to evict the newspaper were intended to suppress the free press and deplete its financial resources. The Court noted that the government’s notice terminating the lease was never served to the Indian Express.

The court reiterated that the issuance of the notices, directing tenants to deposit rent with the L&DO, was a malicious act by the previous government. It was intended solely to suppress the Indian Express and undermine its income sources. The court found the notices to be arbitrary and mala fide. The notice dated November 2, 1987, terminating the lease, was not served to the Indian Express, and the paper learned of it only through a news item in The Times of India on November 15, 1987. The court criticized the government’s conduct as motivated and unjust.

The court held that given the illegal actions by the government and the prolonged litigation lasting nearly five decades, Indian Express should be awarded ₹5 lakh in costs.

The court held that the only amounts payable by Express Newspapers would be conversion charges and additional ground rent. The court rejected the Union’s claims that the amount payable was 17 crores, while Express Newspapers claimed liability for Rs. 14,23,201/-.

The court found the Union’s initial calculation excessive and unreasonable. The court concluded that the amounts payable by Express Newspapers, including conversion charges, additional ground rent, and ground rent, were determined to be Rs. 64,03,007.44/-, inclusive of interest at 18% per annum.

Case Title: Union Of India v Express Newspapers Ltd. And Ors (2024:DHC:6559)