BHAGWAN DAS KALRA (DECEASED) Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed impugning the demand dated 20.05.2005 of the respondent DDA on the petitioner of Rs. 27,12,452/- towards misuse charges of Plot No.32, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi; the petitioner also seeks mandamus commanding the respondent DDA to convert the leasehold rights in the said land into freehold without insisting on payment of the said misuse charges. Notice of the petition was issued and counter affidavit filed by the respondent DDA. The petitioner inspite of opportunities chose not to file the rejoinder. The counsels have been heard.

(2.) The respondent DDA vide indenture dated 17.11.1971 had granted perpetual lease of the land admeasuring 148.64 sq. mtrs. bearing No.32, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi to the petitioner. The petitioner raised construction on the said plot and claims to have let out the same to various tenants. The petitioner admits receipt of notice dated 22.01.1991 from the respondent DDA asking the petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings be not initiated against him for use of the basement of the said premises as Office of Exporter and Showroom / Sample Room of Garments instead of for storage purpose and in contravention of Clause II (13) of the Perpetual Lease Deed. The petitioner claims to have immediately on receipt of show cause notice aforesaid initiated proceedings for eviction under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the tenant misusing the property. The petitioner vide replies dated 13.05.1991 & 29.06.1991 to the show cause notice so informed the respondent DDA and assured to keep the respondent DDA informed of further progress in the eviction proceedings. The respondent DDA according to the petitioner also (see para 6 of the petition) from time to time enquired the status of the said case from the petitioner and claims that he so kept the respondent DDA posted about the progress of the case initiated against the tenant misusing the basement aforesaid. Yet another notice to show cause dated 08.01.1996 was issued by the respondent DDA to the petitioner averring sub-division of the basement and use of part thereof for packaging and re-packaging of clothes instead of for storage purposes and in contravention of Clauses II(2) & (13) of the Perpetual Lease Deed. The petitioner again vide reply dated 30.01.1996 informed the respondent DDA that legal proceedings against the tenant for misuse were underway. The petitioner claims that finally on 31.08.1999, he entered into a compromise with the tenant who was misusing the property and as per which compromise, the tenant vacated the basement and handed over the possession thereof to the petitioner and the petitioner fully and finally settled accounts with the tenant and gave discharge to the tenant.

(3.) At this stage, it may be highlighted that though, the respondent DDA ever since the issuance of the show cause notice had been enquiring the status of the case initiated by the petitioner against the tenant misusing the property and the petitioner also had been assuring the DDA that the petitioner will keep the respondent DDA posted about the said case, but the petitioner neither before entering into the compromise with the tenant nor thereafter gave intimation thereof to the respondent DDA. The petitioner in the year 2004 applied for conversion of the leasehold rights in the land underneath the property into freehold and when the demand aforesaid impugned in this petition for misuse charges was made by the respondent DDA on the petitioner.