Ram Kumar Shree Kishan vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 4145 Del

56
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 7995/2007

      RAM KUMAR SHREE KISHAN                ... Petitioner
                    Through            Mr. Rajesh Banati and Ms.Richa
                                       Arora, Advocates.

                   versus
      D.D.A               ..... Respondent
                          Through
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
           ORDER

% 13.10.2009

Notice in this writ petition was issued on 31st October, 2007, but no

counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents till date.

2. On 19th August, 2008, last opportunity was granted to the

respondents to file counter affidavit subject to payment of cost of Rs.

7,500/- to the petitioner. Additional cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on

the respondents vide order dated 9th January, 2009, for failure to file

counter affidavit. The respondents paid cost of Rs.10,000/- to the counsel

for the petitioner on 27th April, 2009. On the said date, it was directed that

in case counter affidavit is not filed within four weeks, the respondents

will pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner. Cost of Rs.20,000/- has not

been paid. Accordingly, the DDA's right to file counter affidavit was closed

on 27th August, 2009.

WPC 7995-2007 Page 1

2. By letter dated 23rd April, 1941, the leasehold rights in plot No.6/7,

Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi-11055, was granted to Mr. Prabhu

Dayal.

3. By registered sale deed dated 18th January, 1956, Mr. Prabhu Dayal,

transferred the leasehold rights in favour of the petitioner.

4. In 1966, the lease hold rights were terminated by the respondent

DDA on the ground of misuse. The action was challenged in a civil suit for

perpetual injunction. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 31st

July, 1971. However, the said judgment was reversed in the first appeal

vide judgment dated 21st July, 1980. The learned Additional District Judge

held that cancellation of lease deed was invalid and illegal. It was also held

that Vice Chairman of DDA does not have the power to cancel the lease.

The respondent DDA preferred a second appeal, being RSA No.24/1981. In

the second appeal this Court held that the Vice Chairman has power to

cancel the deed, but other findings in favour of the petitioner were upheld

and not set aside. In other words, the judgment and decree were passed

in favour of the petitioner and cancellation of deed by DDA was set aside

and quashed.

5. After judgment of this Court in the second appeal dated 8th August,

2002, the petitioner repeatedly wrote letters to the respondent

WPC 7995-2007 Page 2 requesting them to accept the lease money and consider application for

sanction of building plans.

6. Counsel for the respondent, DDA agrees and admits the aforesaid

facts and states that as per office notings, the judgment passed in the said

suit has been accepted and, therefore, the petitioner continues to be the

lessee of the aforesaid plot.

7. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and mandamus

is issued to the respondent to accept the lease money from the petitioner

in respect of plot No.6/7, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi-11055. In

case there is any shortfall or arrears, the respondent will inform the

petitioner about the same within one month. However, the respondent

will not be entitled to charge interest on the shortfall or arrears as they

themselves have failed to implement the judgment and are at default. In

case, the petitioner files an application for sanction of building plan, the

same will be considered in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

OCTOBER 13, 2009
NA




      WPC 7995-2007                                                   Page 3