VINAY KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Shri Lakshmi Chand was the perpetual lessee of Plot No.1 Block 90, 1, at Jain Mandir Road, New Delhi in pursuance to the lease deed executed on 15.03.1922 and constructed a double storyed building on the said plot some time in 1935. On his demise, the property was mutated vide mutation letter dated 06.06.1963 in the name of the petitioner.

(2.) It appears that soon thereafter the petitioner made certain additional constructions as per the Resolution of the New Delhi Municipal Committee but the respondent, Land & Development Office, Government of India, which was the perpetual lessor refused to grant permission for the additional construction and further refused to regularise the misuse on the premises. This was set out in the letter dated 09.07.1969. It was further stated that the respondent was willing to reconsider the decision provided the petitioner complied with the terms set out in the letter requiring payment of certain additional charges. The petitioner did not comply with the terms of the letter but made a representation dated 14.11.1969 stating that the charges were exorbitant and the penalty should not be imposed. The respondent in turn vide letter dated 18.12.1969 rejected the representation and required the petitioner to comply with the terms and conditions of the letter dated 09.07.1969 within 15 days failing which the terms will be treated as cancelled and withdrawn and action would be taken against the petitioner under Clause 13 of the lease deed for violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. The petitioner, however, once again raised the same issues in the letter dated 27.01.1970 and the respondent vide letter dated 10.04.1970, on account of the failure of the petitioner to comply with the terms of the letter dated 09.07.1969, determined the lease of the petitioner and re-entered the premises with effect from 01.04.1970. The letter further stated that the Department has been directed to take possession of the premises from the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner once again represented vide letter dated 04.06.1970 and was called to attend the office of the respondent. The petitioner vide letter dated 19.10.1971 raised the issue about the quantification of the demand vide letter dated 09.07.1969 of Rs.17,556.20 as charges for misuse as office of an area measuring 1205 sq. feet and stated that in any case the area of misuse is 120-6 square feet. It was stated that only one room was used as a personal office. Thereafter there were periodic reminders by the petitioner including request for any additional charges up-to-date under the rules. Even letters were addressed in 1983 and 1984 but there was no response from the respondent. The petitioner vide letter dated 16.06.1984 informed the respondent that the first floor and barsati floor were still in possession of the petitioner for purpose of residence and kept on requesting to intimate the misuse charges, if any. Vide letter dated 12.04.1993 the petitioner informed the respondent that entire premises were lying vacant since January 1993 and can be inspected at convenience.