D D A Vs. MAHARAJ KRISHAN KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 7th September, 2007 by virtue of which learned Single Judge allowed respondent-owner's writ petition being W. P. (C) No. 4886/2006 and quashed appellant-DDA's demand of Rs. 36,23,538/- for the period from 1st April, 1990 to 6th May, 1999. It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid demand had been raised by appellant-DDA on account of alleged permission fee for running a branch of respondent-SBI at respondent-owner's premises. However, learned single Judge gave liberty to appellant-DDA to proceed in accordance with law against respondent-SBI for recovery of the aforesaid demand. By way of the impugned order, learned Single Judge further directed appellant-DDA to pass necessary orders within four weeks with regard to respondent-owner's application for conversion of premises in question from leasehold to freehold.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the material facts of the present case are that with regard to premises bearing No. E-27, Saket, New Delhi the respondent- owner and respondent-SBI executed three lease deeds dated 13th June, 1985, 16th January, 1992 and 8th February, 2001. By virtue of the aforesaid three deeds, respondent-SBI was liable to pay composition/permission fee as determined by appellant-DDA. In fact, for the period from 1985 to 31st March, 1990, appellant-DDA by virtue of power conferred under Proviso to Clause 13 of the perpetual Lease Deed granted permission to respondent-SBI to run its branch in respondent-owner's premises subject to payment of composition (permission) fee which in fact was paid by respondent-SBI to appellant-DDA.

(3.) HOWEVER, as subsequently respondent-SBI filed a petition challenging the rate at which permission fee had been levied, appellant- DDA in 1990 did not extend the permission to run SBI's branch in the aforesaid premises.