Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Dlf Universial Ltd. And Ors. ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 1769 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

CM No. 16741/2006 in LPA 2309-10/2006

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on this application praying for condensation of delay in filing the appeal. There is a delay of about 229 days in filing the appeal. In the application, grounds for delay have been set out. We have gone through the same.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. The appeal is taken on record.

3. The application stands disposed of.

LPA 2560-63/05 and CM16497/05 and LPA 2309-10/06 and CM 16740/06

1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, we have taken up both these appeals for arguments. As the issues raised in these appeals are identical, we propose to dispose of the same with this common judgment and order.

2. Both the appeals revolve around the issue with regard to payment of misuse charges to be paid by the respondents for conversion of their land from residential to commercial. Respondents are the owners of the concerned properties. As per terms of the lease, the property in LPA No. 2560-63/2005 could be used for residential purposes. In LPA No. 2309/2006, the top floor could be used for residential purposes only, while other floors could be used for commercial purposes. The respondents submitted applications on two different dates for conversion of user from residential to commercial. In LPA 2560-63/2005 the application for change of user was filed on 21st July, 1979 but on the said application order permitting conversion was passed only in the year 1985. In LPA 2309-10/2006 the application was filed on 29th June, 1964, which came to be considered and disposed of on 18th March, 1997.

3. The issue now falls for our consideration is as to whether any misuse charges can be levied by the appellants for the period up to date when the request for conversion was accepted and terms for the same were issued by the appellants. The learned Single Judge before whom also such arguments were raised rejected the prayer for levy of both misuse charges and conversion charges on the ground that the appellant cannot charge both misuse charges and commercial ground rent. It is not disputed before us that commercial ground rent was also demanded and the same was paid by the respondents. Therefore the claim of the appellant towards misuse charges is in the nature of second demand/claim raised by the appellant against the respondents. Commercial ground rent has already been levied which would imply that commercial user of the property is accepted by the appellants. Since commercial ground rent is being levied throughout, it cannot be said that the respondents are liable to pay misuse charges also. Counsel appearing for the appellant at one stage sought to submit that if it is held that the appellants cannot charge commercial ground rent, in that event the aforesaid levy can be quashed with a direction to the respondents to pay misuse charges. We are however unable to accept the said submission for the simple reason that at no stage the appellants had ever questioned levy of commercial ground rent.

4. As pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment in LPA No. 2309-10/2006, the scheme of conversion itself stipulates that the land rates applicable on the date when the application was filed would determine conversion charges comprising of additional premium and revised ground rent. He has also noticed that the appellants in the said case had vide their letter dated 26th August, 1964 agreed in principle to grant conversion. The Policy dated 11th January, 1995 also stipulates that the date of receipt of application, complete in all respects, for conversion, accompanied by requisite documents and earnest money will be crucial date for determining land rates applicable for conversion charges. The earlier policy dated 16th June, 1978 had stated that the crucial date for applying land rates would be three months after receipt of the complete application or the date of approval by the Lesser, whichever was earlier.

5. Applications submitted for conversion of user of the property from residential to commercial were required to be taken up by the appellants as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within a reasonable period. The appellants took six years in LPA 2560-63/2005 and 23 years in LPA 2309-10/2006 for disposal of the applications filed by the respondents praying for conversion from residential to commercial. No justification has been given by the appellants for the delay caused in disposal of the applications. It is not the case of the appellants that the respondents were responsible for the delay, the applications filed were defective, or informations by the said respondents were not furnished. Learned Counsel for the appellants has admitted that the delay had taken place in the office of the appellant. There was definitely negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the appellants for which the respondents cannot be blamed and put to loss for the aforesaid lapse. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in both the cases. In our considered opinion, the demand for misuse charges with interest cannot be upheld. We find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed.