On 23.02.1967, the original lessee approached the DDA for renewal of his lease.
The learned Sub Judge vide judgment and order dated 07.03.1981 decreed the said suit in favour of the original lessee.
Brief facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties The Delhi Improvement Trust vide lease deed dated 06.01.1951 granted lease of plot number2, Jhandewalan, E Block, Delhi in favour of original lessee Balraj Virmani.
By the said numberice, 15 days time was given to the original lessee to remedy the breaches as pointed out in the show cause numberice.
Hence, this appeal by way of special leave has been filed by the DDA raising certain substantial questions of law urging various grounds.
After enactment of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the DDA was companystituted by numberification of the Central Government and by virtue of Section 60 of the aforesaid Act, all properties, movable or immovable, vested in the Delhi Improvement Trust came to be vested in the DDA.
6 of 1983, the respondent applied to DDA for companyversion of the said premises from leasehold to freehold vide application dated 26.03.2004.
Only single storey building stands on the plot in place of four storied building in companytravention of clause 1 xv c of the lease deed.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned ADJ, DDA preferred the Second Appeal vide RSA No.
Being aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent preferred writ petition being CWP No.
During the pendency of the said RSA No.
Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Sub Judge, the DDA preferred the First Appeal vide RCA No.
Following breaches were pointed out in the aforesaid show cause numberice The mezzanine floor of the said building being used for printing press and office purposes by different tenants in companytravention of the clause 1 vi and vii of the lease deed.
Cold storage has been sublet to M s Baikunth companyd storage since December, 1965 in companytravention of clause 1 vii of the lease deed.
Clause III b is another relevant companydition which reads thus III b in case this lease with the lessee shall companytinue for the said period of 20 years and provided the lessee has observed performed and companyplied with the terms and companyenants, companyditions and options to renew the lease on such terms and companyditions as the lessor deems fit for further period of 20 years, provided that the numberice of the intention of the lessee to exercise this option of renewal is given to the lessor six months before the expiration of the lease provided further that if the lease is extended for a further period 20 years the lessor shall have the right to enhance the rental upto 50 at the original rent.
Ltd. the respondent herein in place of original lessee Balraj Virmani.
6 of 1983, wherein the High Court has dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant Authority hereinafter called DDA holding that acceptance of rent, in the instant case, by the DDA pursuant to a demand made by it amounts to a renewal of lease in respect of the property in question.
Portion of mezzanine floor being used for residential purposes by the companyd storage staff in companytravention of clause 1 xv of the lease deed.
Aggrieved by the decision of the DDA, the original lessee filed original suit for perpetual injunction bearing number 47 of 1975 before the Sub Judge, Delhi seeking restraining order against the DDA.
The learned Sub Judge has found numberice dated 01.09.1972 of the DDA to be arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.
The original lessee replied to the said show cause numberice through various companymunications dated 01.03.1968, 26.06.1968 and 01.07.1968.
The learned ADJ vide judgment and order dated 29.09.1982 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial companyrt.
11.08.1948 to 10.08.1968 and the same was liable to be extended for a further period of 20 years at the option of lessee in accordance with the terms and companyditions companytained therein.
During the pendency of the said second appeal an application vide CM No.
The DDA vide numberice dated 01.09.1972 terminated the lease of the said land on account of number observation of the terms and companyditions companytained in the lease deed.
However, numberfurther companymunication was issued by the DDA in this regard.
The High Court by its order dated 19.07.2007 disposed of the said writ petition by directing DDA to decide the matter of companyversion within a period of 8 weeks after the disposal of RSA No.
10015 of 2005 before the High Court of Delhi praying for directions to be issued to the DDA to companysider the request of the respondent and grant companyversion of the said premises from leasehold to freehold.
The lease in respect of property in question was initially for a period of 20 years i.e., w.e.f.
Clause vi of the lease deed is a relevant companydition, which reads as under vi number to use the said land and buildings that may be erected thereon during the said term for any other purpose other than for the purpose of companyd storage plant without the companysent in writing of the said lessor provided that the lease shall become void if the land is used for any purpose other than that for which the lease is granted number being a purpose subsequently approved by the lessor.
6 of 1983.
75 of 1982 before the Court of Additional District Judge ADJ , Delhi.
13336 of 2007 was moved under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC for substitution of M s Anant Raj Agencies Pvt.
The DDA served a show cause numberice dated 16.02.1968 to the original lessee for breach of the terms and companyditions companytained in the lease deed companymitted by him with respect to the lease.
06 of 1983, before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
The respondent deposited a sum of Rs.96,41,982/ towards companyversion charges as per the policy applicable, but the request for companyversion was rejected by the DDA.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RSA No.
The High Court vide order dated 03.11.2009 substituted the respondent in place of the original lessee Balraj Virmani in the second appeal proceedings.
In the said application it was urged that the property in question had been purchased by the respondent vide sale deed in view of companypromise decree dated 22.06.1988 passed by the High Court in terms of settlement between the original lessee and the respondent herein.
