SUNIL VASUDEVA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000.00 against the Delhi Development Authority on the allegations that the plaintiffs owned property known as Plot No. 2, Block No. 18, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the super-structure thereof; that the land beneath the said land is leasehold, on a lease granted initially in favour of Smt.Sita Vasudeva, mother of the plaintiffs by the erstwhile Delhi Improvement Trust, the predecessor of the defendant-Delhi Development Authority vide lease deed dated 31-1-1942; that the plaintiffs became owners/lessees under the defendant on a gift of the said property by their mother in equal shares which gift was accepted by the defendant and accordingly the property was mutated in the records of the defendant in the name of the plaintiffs as owners/lessees to the extent of 1/3rd share each; that in terms of the lease deed dated 31-1-1942 and subsequently renewed from time to time, there is a provision that in the event of sale or transfer of the demised property, the lessees will have to obtain permission of the lessor, namely, the <PG>171</PG> defendant ; that the plaintiff applied for obtaining sale permission in regard to the suit property by a prescribed application dated 14th August, 1982 ; that by letter dated 12th July, 1982 the defendant through Shri Ashok Bakshi, Director (OSB) informed the plaintiffs that certain conditions would have to be fulfilled before requisite permission can be granted and one of the conditions imposed was that the plaintiffs would have to pay "transfer levy" to the defendant in the sum of Rs. 1,98,960.00 in consideration for the grant of sale permission ; that the plaintiffs represented to the defendant that no condition requiring payment of "Transfer levy" could be imposed either under the original lease executed on 31-1-1942 or in the subsequent lease, but the said representation was turned down and later the defendant informed the plaintiffs that it was a policy of the defendant to insist upon payment of transfer levy in every case of grant of sale permission, irrespective of the terms of the lease ; that in the meanwhile the plaintiffs had entered into an agreement of sale of the suit property and the vendees were pressing for the execution of the sale deed and as such the plaintiffs were put in an embarrassing situation and consequently the plaintiffs deposited the said amount of Rs. 1,98,960.00 with the defendant on 13-7-1982 vide receipt No. 24417 ; that the plaintiffs initially wanted to deposit the said sum under protest but were told that if the same is done, the sale permission would not be granted ; that the sale permission was in course of time granted on such deposit and the plaintiffs got the sale deed registered in favour of the vendees ; that the defendant had no right to insist upon payment of the said sum of Rs. 1,98,960.00 under the garb of transfer levy in view of terms of the contract incorporated in the lease ; that even otherwise under the lease deed, the lessor was not empowered to impose any condition, harsh, or extortionate upon the lessee while granting necessary permission ; that the consent could not have been with held arbitrarily ; that the amount got deposited from the plaintiffs was unauthorised and arbitrary and the defendant has no right to retain the same and the plaintiffs are entitled to get refund of the said amount with interest ; that the plaintiffs served a legal notice dated 3-1-1983 upon the defendant asking for refund but to no avail and hence this suit for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs.

(2.) . The defendant-Delhi Development Authority has contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ; that the suit is highly belated ; that there exists no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants ; that the transfer levy was under the lease contract and within the policy and has legal force and is bona fide and without any discrimination; that the plaintiffs are putting wrong interpretation on the lease terms and hence it has been prayed that the suit be dismissed. It may be mentioned here that other facts alleged by the plaintiffs have not been disputed by the defendant.

(3.) . Upon the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed. by Sultan Singh, J. vide orders dated 19th March, 1986 :