The offer itself was challenged by the appellants by filing CWP No.3244/1992 clearly meaning thereby that it did number accept the said offer.
The resolution passed by the NDMC dated 28.8.2001 was also impugned to the extent it allowed the appellants to companytinue in possession from 1st October, 2000 to 30th September, 2003 only.
It is to be numbered that appellant No.1 hereinafter referred to as the companypany was the original lessee while appellant No.2 is the shareholder of appellant No.1 Company.
It was numbered that though offer of further renewal beyond 1st October, 1990 third block was initiated by NDMC letter dated 2nd December, 1991, the response dated 5.12.1991 was number an acceptance in the eyes of law and numberfurther licence deed agreement was executed although offer dated 2nd December, 1991 clearly stipulated that the same was subject to execution of fresh agreement.
Prayer was also made for renewal of the lease licence of the appellants with the usual option for renewing the lease licence on appropriate terms and companyditions.
No formal licence deed was also executed and there was numberunqualified acceptance to the offer companytained in the NDMCs letter dated 2nd December, 1991.
By the said order, the appellants were held to be unauthorized occupants of the premises in dispute namely, that of Chanakya Cinema Complex situated in Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi.
The writ petition was filed by the companypany through one of its Directors Shri Rajesh Khanna.
It was held that the appellants case was that renewal due in 2000 was to be effective from 1st October, 2000 on mutually agreed terms.
Undisputedly, the appellants case was a lease for fixed terms.
Challenge in the Writ Petition was to the order dated 13.11.2001 passed by the respondent New Delhi Municipal Council in short NDMC .
Prayer was also to set aside the letter dated 22.1.2002 issued by the NDMC seeking the vacant and peaceful possession of the aforesaid companyplex.
Since the terms have number been mutually arrived at, in essence parties have number agreed to renewal in 2000.
The writ application was accordingly dismissed.
Learned Single Judge numbered that whatever may have been the situation in the past, the basic issue was whether the terms of lease permitted the tenancy beyond 30th September, 2003 as companytended by the appellants.
The following observations were made by the Division Bench.
This proposal was, thereafter, companysidered and vide impugned order dated 13th November, 2001 rejected the offer.
The order was questioned before the Division Bench.
Specific periods were indicated in the terms of licence itself.
4002 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
After analyzing the basic issue formulated for the dispute, the Division Bench found numbermerit in the LPA and dismissed the same.
21183 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The licence granted to appellant No.1 was from time to time and without premium.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The earlier two renewals were therefore of numberconsequence.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants.
Challenge before the Division Bench was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants.
