D D A Vs. PURNIMA DUTTA CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (hereinafter referred to as the `DDA') questions the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 08.04.2004, allowing WP(C) No.4897/1998. THE respondent had preferred the petition seeking a direction for quashing of demand dated 13.10.1997 for a sum of Rs.26,21,913/- (hereinafter called as the `impugned demand') .

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the respondent was DDA's lessee, pursuant to a perpetual lease deed dated 21.02.1986 in respect of the Plot No. AG-17, Shalimar Bagh, Residential Scheme, Delhi, measuring 300.85 square meters. THE respondent had successfully bid for the plot in auction held on 22.6.1982. THE respondent had let out the premises to one M/s Body Temple, through a lease deed dated 24.07.1991, for a monthly rental of Rs.10,000/-. THE purpose of letting (according to Clause 4 of the lease deed) was "residential/cultural use (fitness and health centre as per DDA/MCD Building Bye Laws)". THE lease was to start on 01.08.1991 and was for a period of two years thus ending on 31.07.1993. THE respondent wrote to the lessee on 26.08.1992 through a notice that since the lease was ending, they had no intention to extend it after the said date i.e. 31.07.1993. THE respondent, in the meantime applied for conversion of the lease hold rights in respect of the premises, into free hold, pursuant to DDA's scheme which had been made effective in the meanwhile (the scheme was called as "the Scheme of Conversion From Lease Hold System into Free Hold, April 1992", referred to hereafter as "the Conversion Scheme" or "Conversion Policy"). THE lease ended and the tenant despite the expiry of the lease did not hand over the possession and continued in the premises, constraining the landlord/respondent to file a suit seeking a decree for possession in 1994.

(3.) THE Court also relied upon another decision in Ravinder Syal Vs. Union of India, (WP(C) No.678/2001 decided on 15.03.2002) by a Single Judge of the Court. THE learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment thereafter went on to determine what ought to be reasonable and fair damages which the DDA could be allowed to recover under the circumstances towards the misuse charges and held that :