ASHWNI KUMAR KHANNA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sub-lease deed was executed in respect of plot No. E-5/8, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in favour of Smt. Kalan on 19.07.1972. The property was sold on a Power of Attorney basis to the petitioner herein on 28.04.1978, though the nature of transaction was of an agreement for construction along with a General Power of Attorney and Will with a provision that on the failure of the perpetual sub-lease deed to pay the amount in terms of the construction agreement, the property would vest with the petitioner. The agreement to sell was entered into on 20.12.1980 for an amount of Rs.5.50 lacs and Smt Kalan applied to the respondent for permission to sell the property to the petitioner in 1980.

(2.) The petitioner let out the property to one Shri Balbir Singh on 23.01.1981, who started running a guest house in a portion of the property in question. In the meantime on 18.08.1981, the respondent replied to Smt. Kalan in pursuance to her request for permission to transfer stating that she could apply for permission after expiry of 10 years from execution of the sub-lease and after three years from the date of completion of building,

(3.) In view of the misuser of the property, the DDA cancelled the lease deed on 19.08.1983 and Shri Balbir Singh, the tenant, filed a suit, which was registered as Suit No. 907/1983, against the DDA challenging the cancellation of the sub-lease deed. The petitioner was not made a party to the same. A restrained order was passed in January, 1984 against the DDA. Smt. Kalan expired on 08.02.1986. Shri Balbir Singh handed over possession of the property to the petitioner in January, 1989 and it is stated that the suit filed by Shri Balbir Singh was ultimately dismissed since the property had been vacated by him and the petitioner occupied the property himself. The petitioner claims that she even took steps in Suit No. 907/ 1983 to be impleaded as a party, but the same was dismissed on 11.01.1990 on the ground that the petitioner was not the sub- leasee of the plot in question.