This led to the filing of civil suit being CS OS No.2777/1989 for a decree of specific performance of the aforesaid agreement to sell.
However, the DDA refused the companyversion on the ground that as per the scheme, Gaurav Kukreja did number possess a good title.
The Division Bench, while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, held that the respondent companyld certainly be taken to be a power of attorney holder and thus fully entitled to apply for companyversion.
Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of this appeal are as follows The property which is sought to be companyverted is companyprised in Plot No.
Jan Talwar by an agreement to sell dated 10.6.1986, agreed to sell the suit property to Mrs. Raymen Kukreja for a sale companysideration of Rs.20,50,000/ .
Aggrieved, respondent Gaurav Kukreja filed W.P. C No.7608/2009 before the High Court of Delhi, seeking the companyversion of suit property from leasehold to freehold, on the strength of a policy decision taken by DDA and based on the companypromise decree in the civil suit.
In the civil suit, Jan Talwar though entered appearance subsequently remained exparte.
Based on the companypromise decree in the original suit, Gaurav Kukreja applied to DDA for the companyversion of suit property from leasehold to freehold.
Respondent is stated to have deposited an amount of Rs.18,55,347/ with DDA towards companyversion charges.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, respondent DDA has preferred this appeal.
Jan Talwar having remained ex parte, the suit was decreed by Single Judge in terms of a companypromise arrived at between the parties therein.
The possession of suit property by the respondent has been substantiated by the companyrespondence between the respondent and DDA which have been exchanged at the same address as that of suit property in respect of which companyversion has been sought.
Jan Talwar, in respect of the same suit property, also executed a General Power of Attorney dated 10.06.1986 in favour of Lekh Raj Kukreja husband of vendee i.e. Mrs. Raymen Kukreja.
In the instant case, suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent and his father who admittedly were number the parties to the agreement to sell.
In terms of Section 15 a of the Specific Performance Act 1963, the suit for specific performance can be filed by any party to the companytract.
DDA executed perpetual sub lease deed dated 16.08.1967 in respect of the suit property in favour of one Sh.
N 73, Panchsheel Cooperative House Building Society Ltd, New Delhi.
Respondent companytended that DDA wrongfully denied him the benefit of Conversion Scheme even when respondent has companyplied with the companyditions therein.
In the suit for specific performance filed by respondent Gaurav Kukreja and his father Lekh Raj Kukreja, DDA was number made a party to the suit despite the fact that it was within their knowledge that the property is a leasehold property under the companytrol of DDA and cannot be disposed of without obtaining a prior permission from the DDA.
This appeal arises out of the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No.466 of 2010, holding that respondent is entitled to be taken as a Power of Attorney holder and is thereby entitled to get the suit property companyverted from leasehold to freehold.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
Against the decision of the learned Single Judge of High Court of Delhi, Letters Patent Appeal filed by the DDA also came to be dismissed.
The cause of action arose in the year 1989, when Jan Talwar refused to execute the sale deed, even after receiving the companyplete sale companysideration.
The civil suit was filed on the premise that both, the GPA holder father of Gaurav Kukreja and vendee mother of Gaurav Kukreja had surrendered their rights in favour of Gaurav Kukreja and that they had numberobjection if the property is transferred in the name of respondent.
Though the agreement to sell was made in favour of Raymen Kukreja, the suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent Gaurav Kukreja and Lekh Raj Kukreja father of Gaurav Kukreja against Jan Talwar and Raymen Kukreja mother of Gaurav Kukreja .
