RAM RATAN GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of tine Writ Petitions Nos. 1485/73, 1487/73 and 1488/73, which will collectively be inferred to herein as a petition. The reason is that the facts are identical except that the number of plots arc different. Petition No. 1485/73 relates to Plot No. A-ll, Petition No. 1487/73 relates to Plot No. A.13, and Petition No. 1488/73 relates to Plot No. A-12. The petitioners respectively are Ram Rattan Gupta, Ram Gopal Gupta and Prem Kumar Gupta, who also seem to be closely related. I will refer to them collectively as a petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was a member of the Maharani Bagh House Building Co-operative Society. On 31-5-1965 a tripartite deed of perpetual sub-lease was executed between the President of India the lessor, Maharani Bagh House Building Co-operative Society the lessee and the petitioner the sub-lessee' in respect of a plot in Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, mentioned in the said deed. It was registered on 4-6-1965. Under the terms of the sub-lease, the petitioner was required within a period of two years computed from 1-1-1965 to erect upon the said plot in a substantial and workman like manner a residential building in accordance with a sanctioned plan and to the satisfaction of Municipal and other authorities. The petitioner submitted the plans but due to change in the number of the plot, the plans were not sanctioned.

(3.) However, on 16-8-1969, the Lt. Governor sent a notice that since the petitioner had not erected a good and substantial building for purposes of private dwelling up to 30-5-1967, he has committed a breach of clause II (5) of the sub-lease and was directed to show cause within 30 days why the conveyance be not determined and the possession of the said plot be not taken back. On 1-9-1969 the petitioner replied that he had submitted the building plans to the Delhi Municipal Corporation, but the same were rejected because the number of the plot had been changed on site. On 20-4-1970, the petitioner was informed that as sufficient cause has not been shown, the sub-lease has been cancelled by the Lt. Governor and the petitioner was called upon to deliver possession of the plot to the DDA at 8.00 a. m. on 13-5-1970. The petitioner applied on 2-5-1970 for extension of time by one year to complete the building. He stated that he could not undertake construction on account of financial difficulties. He was granted extension of time up to 31-12-1970 on 26-5-1970, the petitioner obtained sanction for the plan from the Municipal Corporation and thereafter began construction. Meanwhile, on 9-6-1971, the Lt. Governor issued a general circular (Annexure H) that the period for construction will be extended up to 30-9-1971. Thereafter, another extension up to four years could be allowed on payment of penalty at the rates specified in the said circular. Clause 6 of that circular stipulated that the sub-lease will be determined only if construction is not completed within seven years. Despite that circular, the Delhi Development Authority (herein DDA) served the petitioner with a registered letter dated 9-8-1971 asking him to hand over the plot at 10.00 a. m. on 20-10-1971. The petitioner sent a reply on 18-8-1971 that the construction was almost complete except the roofing of one room, finishing and plastering. This could not be done on account of shortage of labour and material. On 28-9- 1971, the petitioner informed the DDA that the construction of the dwelling house on the plot has been completed. He obtained a construction certificate from the Municiple pal Corporation on 5-1-1972 and began to be assessed to house-tax, water-tax and other charges of the Corporation. Yet by a notice dated 11-10-1973 (which was received by him on 23-10-1973), the petitioner was informed that the Lt. Governor has cancell- ed the sub-lease under the provisions of clause III thereof. He was called upon to hand over possession at 11.00 a.m. on 23-10-1973. On 27-10-1973 the petitioner made a- representation requesting the re- spondents not to take any such action against the petitioner as there has been no violation of the provisions, of the sub-lease and on 5-11-1973 filed the petition in this Court challenging the determination of the sub-lease and the threat to take possession as illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and ultra vires and is in violation of the princi- ples of natural justice.