U O I Vs. RAJ KUMAR GOVIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. As the respondent has failed to appear inspite of being served, this appeal is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25th March, 2004 wherein the learned Single Judge construed Clause 11 of the Lease Deed. Clause 11 of the Lease Deed reads as follows:-

(3.) THE writ petitioner, respondent herein sought permission in view of the aforesaid Clause to transfer the property to a purchaser and the permission was declined, hence, the writ petition was filed in this Court. The learned Single Judge noticed that the reasons given for non-granting the sale permission to the respondent was the demand of appellant towards 50% unearned increase. The learned Single Judge has held that Clause 11 only stipulates the requirement of prior permission and does not stipulate or authorise the respondent to claim any unearned increase for transfer of the plot. For this purpose, the learned Single Judge has relied upon two judgments of this Court titled as Sunil Vasudeva Etc. v. DDA, 1989 RLR 23 and Ramji Dass Guglani v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. , 2003 IV AS (DELHI) 33 Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the transfer without any unearned increase. Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in arriving at the conclusion that Clause 11 did not stipulate the levy of unearned increase has not taken note of the fact of the circulars which he fairly conceded, were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, since the issue affects a large number of transfers, we have considered the effect of the circular dated 30th August, 1965, the relevant clause of which reads as under: