B D GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal was on an earlier occasion adjourned as the parties were trying to arrive at asettlement. After we had heard this appeal the learned counsel for the parties wanted us to reserve judgment for a few days so that the parties may negotiate for a compromise. We have now been informed that they have not been able to reach any agreement.

(2.) The Chief Commissioner of Delhi by order dated 13th September, 1954, decided to re-enter the premises on account of the alleged violation of clause 2(5) of the lease-deed. This order results in the plaintiff losing the entire valuable property. The right of re-entry has been exercised on account of certain unauthorised constructions in the premises. On 25th May, 192/, a lease agreement was entered into between one Padam Chand and the Secretary of State for India. The plaintiff-appellant, purchased Padam Chand's rights on 31st March, 1930, and alease- dead was executed between the Secretary of State for India and B. D. Gupta, plaintiff-appellant, on 20th August, 1932. Clause 2(5) of the said lease-deed (Exhibit D. 1.) reads-

(3.) After the receipt of the communication dated 1st August, 1953, from the New Delhi Municipal Committee the plaintiff enquired about the reasons for rejection and by five letters written in October, 1953, February, 1954, March, 1954, April, 1954 and June, 1954, the Land and Development Office informed the plaintiff that the constructions were illegal. These letters were received by the plaintiff when the construction was actually in progress. It is admitted on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that these so called unauthorised constructions were made after 9th March, 1953. It is in these circumstances that on 14th September, 1954, the Chief Commissioner directed re-entry into the building and the plaintiff filed the present suit in December, 1954 challenging the said direction of the Chief Commissioner, which was dismissed by the trial Court by Judgment dated 3rd April, 1957.