DDA Vs. ASHA PAL GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals challenge separate judgments of two learned Single Judges dealing with identical issues concerning the true and correct interpretation of clause II (3)(b) of the Perpetual Lease Deed executed by the DDA in favour of the lessees/writ petitioners.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts in LPA No. 1084/2004 are that the petitioner succeeded in a public auction held by the DDA i.e. the appellant on 16.01.1971 for sale of a commercial plot i.e. No. 30, Basant Lok Community Centre, Vasant Vihar, Delhi. The total consideration paid was Rs. 50,000/-; eventually a Perpetual Lease Deed was executed on 26.10.1976 and the possession of the plot was handed over. Concededly, the building comprising of several floors i.e. basement, ground, mezzanine, first, second and third floor, was constructed in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the authorities and the entire building was let out to one M/s. SAE India Ltd. on 16.07.1977. While so, the DDA issued a show cause notice on 6.6.1984 alleging that the petitioner had indulged in misuse since third floor was not being used for a residential purpose; the DDA also sought to recover misuse charges. The respondent/petitioner protested this move by separate letters and representations stating that though the sanction given was for a residential portion of the premises i.e. the third floor; in reality, there was no such compulsion in the Master Plan or the Zonal plan in question. However, in the alternative, the lessee sought to put an end to the dispute by offering to pay composition fee. The DDA did not agree and initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; this led to the lessee approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by preferring CWP No. 926/1986. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge quashed the demand notice and the eviction proceedings. After considering the submissions of the parties, as well as the material on record, the learned Single Judge ruled that the concerned stipulations in the lease deed, did not in any manner compel the petitioner to use the third floor for residential purposes exclusively. In arriving at such a finding, the learned Single Judge considered the architectural controls annexed in the form of a Map to the lease deed as well as the sanction plan, obtained by the lessee.

(3.) IT is argued by Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, learned counsel for the DDA that the findings of the learned Single Judge are unsustainable. He emphasized that in terms of the auction notice, the lessees were well aware of the fact that upon construction of the plot of land, the third floor was to be necessarily used for residential purposes. This was further clarified, according to counsel, upon plain reading of Clause 3(b), which had to be construed along with the map that formed an integral part of the lease deed. Counsel also relied upon the extract of the then prevailing Master Plan ­ MPD 62, especially Paras 12 and 13 which dealt with the Use Zone C.1 and submitted that the interpretation placed by the DDA is the correct one and the learned Single Judge fell into error in holding otherwise.