V K VADHERA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions against the respondent, inter alia, praying therein for the quashing of the demand of unearned increase and unspecified damages mentioned in the letter of the respondent dated 23/24.12.1998.

(2.) At the outset, Mr. D.R. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that this case is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mrs. Vijaya Gurashaney v. DDA & Ors., 1994 RLR (DB) 367. However, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, Ms. Sangita Chandra, has contended that the present case is distinguishable on its own facts as the lease was determined by the respondent on 17.8.1990. It has been contended by her that from the documents filed by the petitioner, it would be apparent that it was a case of sale and, therefore, this case is not covered by Mrs. Vijaya Gursahaney's case (supra).

(3.) I have given by careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. There is no dispute that Mrs. Mitra, who became the lessee of the plot in question after the death of his husband, executed a Will on 26.11.1987. That Will was probated in London on 18.7.1989. In Mrs. Vijaya Gursahaney's case (supra), this Court held :