Delhi High Court
Manvinder Singh Bedi vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 4 February, 2005
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. A perpetual lease deed was executed on 19.08.1961 in favor of late Smt. Jasbir Kaur in respect of plot bearing No. BP-34, NH IV Part I, Ring Road, New Delhi now known as 34, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring 725 sq. yds. Late Smt. Jasbir Kaur during her lifetime executed a sale deed dated 21.11.1967 in favor of the petitioner and the property was ultimately mutated in favor of the petitioner on 15.01.1972.
2. Show-cause notices were issued by the respondent on account of alleged misuse by the petitioner of the premises as office of M/s. Blue Star. The petitioner admitted to the misuser, but stated that he was willing to pay the misuse charges. The misuse
harges had to be intimated by the respondent, but the respondent vide communication dated 11.05.1973 informed the petitioner about re-entry of the premises on account of the misuser. The petitioner represented against the same, but no action was taken is that behalf.
3. Blue Star agreed to vacate the premises on 31.03.1976 and intimation of the same was given to the respondent.
4. The respondent came out with a scheme for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold initially for smaller plots and thereafter even for larger plots. The petitioner applied for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold on 12.11.1999 and deposited the conversion charges. However, the conversion was not made on account of the earlier order of re-entry even though it was stated that the petitioner had stopped the misuse on 31.03.1976 after the re-entry. The petitioner came across the circular of the respondent dated 25.06.1996 on the question of revocation of re-entry on payment of prescribed charges. In terms of the said circular, the prescribed charges of Rs.100/- per day or Rs.3,000/- per annum could be paid and on such payment, no damages o account of deemed unauthorised occupation would be levied by the lease-administering authority. However, the respondent ultimately rejected the application of the petitioner and refunded the amount of conversion charges on 04.09.2000, though the same was not encashed.
5. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order of re-entry and for a direction that the case of the petitioner for conversion from leasehold rights into freehold be processed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter in issue is no more res integra in so far as the terms and conditions on which the re-entry ought to be cancelled in view of the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Vinay Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, , which stands affirmed in LPA No. 696/2004 decided on 07.01.2005. The only modification in the appeal is that some payments directed towards misuse charges in terms of the judgment of learned Single Judge have also been directed not to be paid.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the aforesaid position and only submits that the respondent is in the process for examining the judgment of Division Bench of this Court and may prefer a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. Be that as it may, the position in law as it stands is that on payment of the amounts in terms of the circulars of the respondent, re-entry is liable to be cancelled and no further damages can be sought to be levied other than that of Rs.3,000/- per an um. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner has already deposited the misuse charges amounting to Rs.87,000/- for a period of 29 years.
9. It may be noticed that learned counsel for the respondent seeks to further contend that the misuse is continuing. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that only residential guest house is running and the same is permissible in law as he d in the case of Ashwani Kumar Khanna v. DDA, 2003 III AD Delhi 634. The only condition is that no restaurant could be opened except to occupants of the building.
10. It has to be appreciated that the circulars and the scheme have been brought into operation with the object of converting the properties from leasehold into freehold and since the issue of re-entry arose in a number of cases, the circular was issued t take care of such cases by providing for the charges to be paid for the order of re-entry to be recalled.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned communications for re-entry and rejection of the application for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold are quashed.
12. A writ of mandamus is, thus, issued directing the respondent to process the application of the petitioner for conversion into freehold and the needful be done within a period of two months from today.
13. The writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
