USHA LATA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for perpetual injunction and for declaration.

(2.) Brief facts which gave rise to the present suit are as under: that the defendants No. 2. and 3 were allotted by way of perpetual sub lease leasehold rights in respect of Plot No.D-1/29, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi at site B of the Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Limited measuring 767 sq. yds. under a perpetual sub lease dated 23rd November, 1971. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants No.2 & 3 by virtue of which the plaintiff was given a right to raise construction on the plot in question. In terms of the said agreement the plaintiff started raising construction and completed the construction in terms of the said agreement. In terms of the said agreement defendants no. 2 & 3 were called upon to make payment of construction and other charges. Defendants No.2 & 3 were not in a position to pay back the construction and other charges alluded to in the agreement dated 23rd November, 1972. Accordingly, they approached the plaintiff for extension of time for the payment of the amount. In order to facilitate the payment of the said amounts by the defendants No.2 & 91 3 yet another agreement was entered into in between the parties, i.e., the defendants No.2 & 3 and the plaintiff dated 20th June, 1977. The defendants agreed through the said agreement to clear the said amount, i.e., a sum of Rs.5,37,500.00 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the said agreement adverted to above vide clause 'A' plaintiff had a right to get a conveyance deed executed in her favour. The agreement dated 20th June, 1977 is a supplement to the above said agreement. In order to avoid controversy the plaintiff and the defendants No.2 and 3 agreed to get their disputes decided by an Arbitrator. Shri Hari Kishan Dewan was appointed a Sole Arbitrator in terms of the said agreement. Shri Hari Kishan Dewan made and published his Award on 30th December, 1981. The plaintiff was declared as the absolute owner of the property in dispute through the said Award. The said Award was thereafter filed before the High Court and was made a rule of the Court. To the dismay -and horror of the plaintiff she received a copy of the letter from the defendant No.l addressed to defendants No.2 & 3 where through she was asked to show cause as to why the lease in her favour be not cancelled. The plaintiff is ready and prepared to pay 50% of the unearned increase in terms of the Award. The contemplated action of the defendant No. 1 to cancel the lease deed in respect of the property in dispute is illegal, invalid and arbitrary and malafide. Hence, arose the necessity for the institution of the present suit.

(3.) The defendants said not put in any contest and the suit proceeded ex-parte against the defendants.