DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHANTI SWAROOP GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Delhi Development Authority, claims to be aggrieved by the judgment and order of a learned single judge of this Court, dated 19-

(2.) -2003 allowing WP 1001/2002, (a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). 2. The facts necessary to decide this appeal are that Plot No. D-1061, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, measuring 284.4 square yards (hereafter referred to as "suit property") was leased in through a deed executed on behalf of the President of India, on 22-09-1978 in favour of Smt. V.D. Marwah (hereafter described either by her name or as "the original lessee"). On 06.11.1978, the original lessee executed a Will in favour of Ms. Saroj Kumari. The original lessee died on 16-12-1982. The legatee, Ms. Saroj Kumari applied for probate; the Court issued citation and called for objections on behalf of all persons interested in the estate of the late Ms. Marwah. By its judgment, the Civil Court held that the will was proved in accordance with law, and granted probate to the said Ms. Saroj Kumari, on 06-08-1983. She applied for mutation (or recording of her name in the records of DDA) on 19-06-1984. The DDA granted the application, and entered her name, in its mutation register, as the recorded owner/ lessee, on 19-06-1985. Later, Ms. Marwah entered into an agreement to sell, and parted with possession of the suit property, to the original writ petitioner, Shanti Swaroop Goel, through a Power of Attorney transaction, on 15-12- 1987. In the year 1994, the Central Government announced a scheme for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold rights. Mr Goel applied for conversion. The application met with no favourable order, and on 8th April, 2001, he received a demand from DDA for Rs. 2,54,619/- towards restoration charges relating to the transaction between the original lessee and Ms. Saroj Kumari. He received a further demand for Rs. 11,01,944/- on 16-10-2001 reiterating the earlier demand. Since Shri Goel did not comply with the demands, he received a letter dated 18th January, 2002 cancelling the lease. He sought for quashing of the demands and the cancellation of lease order, through the writ petition, and also sought a direction that his application for conversion of the property into freehold should be granted.

(3.) MS. Sangeeta Chandra, learned counsel for DDA, urged that the impugned judgment is in error of law, because it ignored the stipulation contained in Clause II (6) (a) and (b) of the Lease Deed that the sub-Lessee/ unit owner could not transfer or assign his or her rights, without previous permission of the Lessor, DDA in writing. The embargo was in absolute terms and its breach entailed drastic consequences, even the cancellation of the lease itself.