R.S.MALHOTRA Vs. SEWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment and order will dispose off an appeal (RFA (OS) No. 28 of 2003) directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge decreeing a suit (Suit No. 1642/1992, hereafter "the suit") for specific performance. The decree required execution of sale deed and receipt of the consideration. The same individual, R.S. Malhotra (hereafter referred to as the "original owner") has also, in a writ petition (No.2658/2012) under Article 226 of the Constitution, claimed a direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the demand made by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in its letter dated 12th January 2012 impugned therein, whereby unearned increase quantified by the said Authority has been demanded.

(2.) The original owner was perpetual lessee of property bearing plot number B-140, Block B, Vivek Vihar, Delhi- measuring 300 sq. yards - acquired through perpetual lease executed on 12th June 1989 by the President of India. The original owner had agreed to sell the property to one Mr. Sewa Singh and Mrs. Pawanjeet Kaur for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,72,500/-. To complete the said sale the petitioner had to obtain necessary permissions from various authorities viz. "No Objection Certificate" from the Income Tax authorities, the Delhi Development Authority, the Urban Land Ceiling Authority etc. which the original owner agreed to obtain within a period of 365 days. The possession of the said property was to be delivered after the execution of sale deed.

(3.) Since the sale of transaction could not be completed as per the agreement to sell, Mr Sewa Singh and Mrs. Pawanjeet Kaur filed a suit for specific performance against the original owner being CS (OS) 1642 of 1992. The learned Single Judge passed the decree in favour of Mr. Sewa Singh and Mrs. Pawanjeet Kaur with the direction to the petitioner to apply to the DDA for permission/consent to sell the suit land bringing out the factual position and exceptional circumstance in which such permission was being requested. The petitioner assailed the said order and judgment in appeal being RFA (OS) 28 of 2003.