UOI Vs. DLF UNIVERSIAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of counsel for the parties, we have taken up both these appeals for arguments. As the issues raised in these appeals are identical, we propose to dispose of the same with this common judgment and order.

(2.) Both the appeals revolve around the issue with regard to payment of misuser charges to be paid by the respondents for conversion of their land from residential to commercial. Respondents are the owners of the concerned properties. As per terms of the lease, the property in LPA No.2560-63/2005 could be used for residential purposes. In LPA No.2309/2006, the top floor could be used for residential purposes only, while other floors could be used for commercial purposes. The respondents submitted applications on two different dates for conversion of user from residential to commercial. In LPA 2560-63/2005 the application for change of user was filed on 21st July, 1979 but on the said application order permitting conversion was passed only in the year 1985. In LPA 2309-10/2006 the application was filed on 29th June, 1964, which came to be considered and disposed of on 18th March, 1997.

(3.) The issue now falls for our consideration is as to whether any misuser charges can be levied by the appellants for the period up to date when the request for conversion was accepted and terms for the same were issued by the appellants. The learned Single Judge before whom also such arguments were raised rejected the prayer for levy of both misuser charges and conversion charges on the ground that the appellant cannot charge both misuser charges and commercial ground rent. It is not disputed before us that commercial ground rent was also demanded and the same was paid by the respondents. Therefore the claim of the appellant towards misuser charges is in the nature of second demand/claim raised by the appellant against the respondents. Commercial ground rent has already been levied which would imply that commercial user of the property is accepted by the appellants. Since commercial ground rent is being levied throughout, it cannot be said that the respondents are liable to pay misuser charges also. Counsel appearing for the appellant at one stage sought to submit that if it is held that the appellants cannot charge commercial ground rent, in that event the aforesaid levy can be quashed with a direction to the respondents to pay misuser charges. We are however unable to accept the said submission for the simple reason that at no stage the appellants had ever questioned levy of commercial ground rent.