PADMAVATI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction against defendant No. 2, restraining it from forfeiting or determining the perpetual lease deed dated February 14, 1966 regarding residential plot of land bearing No. B-1/67, Safdarjung, Enclave, New Delhi and for grant of mandatory injunction requiring the defendant No,1, Delhi Development Authority to accord the accessary sale permission in accordance with its public policy and in consonance with the terms of the lease deed so that the sale deed could be executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid properly. Relief of mandatory injunction is also sought against defendant No. 2 for executing the sale deed of this property in favour of the plaintiff after the necessary permission has been granted by defendant No. 1. The plaintiff also seeks perpetual injunction against defendant No. 2 restraining him from transferring, assigning or alienating in any manner whatsoever the property in question in favour of anyone. In the alternative, plaintiff has claimed a decree for a sum of Rs. l,65,000.00 as damages.

(2.) Defendant No. 2 has suffered ex-parte proceedings in this case whereas defendant No. I who was contesting the suit and had filed the written statement, did .not comply with the order of the Court dated March 19, 1987 made in the application under Order 11 Rules 12, 14 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus vide order dated November 20,1989, Sunanda Bhandare, J. had struck off the defence of defendant No. 1.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief are that vide perpetual lease deed, copy of which is Ex. P. 21, the President of India had granted leasehold right in the plot in question in tavonr ot defendant No. 2 and admittedly defendant No. 2 bad constructed a residential house and obtained necessary completion certificate from defendant No. 1. The lease deed was executed on February 14, 1966. The defendant No. 2 somewhere in the year 1971 had approached the husband of the plaintiff for obtaining some loan and offered to mortgage bis property as a security for the loan. Defendant No. 2 approached the Lt. Governor, the Chairman of D.D.A. for getting permission to mortgage the property. However, no such permission was granted and the defendant No. 2 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff where the defendant No. 2 agreed to sell the property in question to the plaintiff after the necessary permission was obtained from the D.D.A. in accordance with the terms of the lease deed and the plaintiff agreed to the advance to the defendant a sum of Rs. l,47,000.00 on January 3, 1972. Thus an agreement was executed on February 8, 1972 and defendant No. 2 was paid Rs. 25.000.00 on January 3, 1972 and Rs. l,12,000.00 on February 8, 1982. It was agreed that the plaintiff would give Rs. 10.000.00 more as loan to defendant No. 2 and the said amount was paid by monthly instalments of Rs 500.00 each commencing from March 15, 1972. So it was averred that in fact whole of the sale consideration which was termed as a loan, stood paid to defendant No. 2 and it was agreed between plaintiff and defendant No. 2 that the plaintiff would pay Rs 750.00 per mensum as rent which will -offset the interest of the same amount on the loan of Rs 1, 47,000.00 taken by defendant NO. 2 from the plaintiff. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that after the expiry of period of 10 years from the date, of the execution of lease deed. an application was given to the D.D.A. on March 5, 1976, requiring the D.D A. to grant the necessary permission for sale of the property by defendant No 2 in favour of the plaintiff Vide letter dated June 28, 1976, the D D.A. required the plaintiff's attorney and husband to furnish the copy of the agreement dated February 8,-1972 and the same was furnished to the D D.A. vide letter dated August 30, 1976. Vide notice dated November 4, 1976. the defendant No. 8. D D A. required defendant No. 2 to show cause as to why action be not taken for cancelling the lease as he had sold the property to the plaintiff without obtaining previous sanction of the D.D A. in breach of the terms of the lease deed Defendant No. 2 is stated to have sent replies controverting the allegations and the plaintiff is also stated to have met the authorities of the D.D.A and explained the necessary position and insisted that necessary sanction be granted apart from withdrawing the show cause notice. Vide letter dated May 16, 1977, defendant No. 1 required the plaintiff to submit certain more documents in order to enable the D.D A to consider the request of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 for granting permission for sale of the property The plaintiff sent the necessary documents vide letter dated June 9, 1977. It is alleged that in spite of the plaintiff visiting the office of D.D A, the said defendant sat over the papers and did not care to decide the application seeking permission for the sale of the property by defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff. It was avrred in the plaint that the officials of the D.D.A. were taking the view that ia order to assess the unearned increase in the value of the property, they would be taking the present value of the property and not the value of the property at the time when the application was made seeking permission of the authorities for selling the property. It is alleged that despite various reminders issued and legal notices served on the D D.A., it has failed lo grant the necessary permission. Hence the necessity arose for filing the suit. lt was also alleged in the plaint that the D.D.A. was sitting over the papers in collusion with defendant No. 2, perhaps wants to wriggle out of the agreement for sale made in favour of the plaintiff.