DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MOHD MURSALEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 9 th May, 2005 and 24 th May, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7724/2002 and Review Petition No.294/2005, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent and thereafter dismissed the Review Petition filed by the Appellant, respectively.

(2.) The factual matrix in brief is as follows:

(3.) On behalf the Appellant, Mr. Ajay Verma, Counsel, argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the terms and conditions of the sub-lease deed specifically required the premises in question to be used only for residential purposes and that the sub-lessee/Respondent was solely responsible for ensuring the same. Consequently, the Respondent, being solely liable for abiding by the terms of sub-lease, could not escape liability for payment of misuse charges based on the alleged acts of his tenant. It was further argued on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondent would have to pay the misuse charges, but could, if so advised, recover the same from the latter's tenant.