SAVITRI DEVI Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of a property situated in Delhi. She challenges an order of the Appropriate Authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short). Petitioner obtained a land on lease from President of India on the condition that she should build a residential tenement on it after the construction of the building, Petitioner was granted a perpetual lease on 19th December 1969 in respect of the land. Subsequently petitioner let out the premises after obtaining permission of the Rent Controller to East West Medical Centre for residential pur- ' poses for 2 years. The tenant used the premises for running a Nursing Home; a suit was also filed by the tenant contending that the lease in favour of the tenant was for non-residential purpose; the suit was adjourned pending a decision by the Rent Controller as to whether the lease in question was for residential or non-residential purpose. There were also several other proceedings between the petitioner and the said tenant.

(2.) The condition of the Perpetual lease under which petitioner obtained the land from the President required that the land should be used only for residential purpose. Since the tenant of the petitioner used the premises for a different purpose, L & DO levied penalty charges for the misuse amounting to Rs. 1,97,85,963.00 for the period 1976 to 14th July, 1991. Petitioner stales that the charges for the subsequent period are yet to be communicated. Petitioner estimated the said charges to be about Rs. 35 lakhs. There was a threat of re-entry on behalf of the President. In view of the peculiar predicament, she agreed to sell the properties to the 4th for a consideration of Rs. 80.21 lakhs; purchaser agreed to take over all other liablities including the liability of the penalty charges and unearned increase of about Rs. 65 lakhs. According to the petitioner she is an old lady 75 years. She is a helpless widow, without any one to assist her in various litigations.

(3.) Consequently an agreement of sale was entered into between the petitioner and the 4th respondent on 5-8-1993. The total apparent consideration from the sale was Rs. 3,43,06,963. All these years the petitioner was getting only Rs. 6,000 per month as rent.