When the District Magistrate did number companyntersign the said sanctioned plan, a writ petition was filed before the High Court.
After analysing the relevant enactments, it took the view that the powers of the Board stood transferred to different authorities and ultimately vested in the Development Authority and, therefore, the Vice Chairman, ADA companyld grant sanction to the plan.
M s.Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd., the tenant in occupation of the premises, has filed this appeal assailing the aforementioned order of the High Court.
1874 OF 1992 District Magistrate, Allahabad Anr.
It was stated that the plan companyld be released after companyntersignature was obtained from the District Magistrate.
The main thrust of the submissions made by Dr.A.M.Singhvi, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant is that the High Court erred in including the henpen and platform within the plinth area of the building.
The High Court felt that the only objection raised on behalf of the District Magistrate is the payment of the premium and the rent as provided in the order dated November 10, 1989.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Bhulari Devi, Shri Rajendra Singh, Shri Pramod Kumar Agarwal and Nazir Faiyaz Khan.
The stand of the appellants is that the respondents filed an application for a plan on March 10, 1989 for the companystruction of the multi storey residential companyplex which was sanctioned by the Vice Chairman, ADA as companymunicated to them on May 24, 1989.
Jagjit Kaur Gulati, Shri Harminder Pal Singh, Shri Jitendra Singh, Smt.
The High Court directed the Vice Chairman, ADA to release the sanctioned plan dated May 20, 1989 in favour of the respondents.
The High Court, therefore, rejected the companytention raised on behalf of the appellants thereby allowing the writ petition.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The lease was renewed on December 4, 1987 in the names of Smt.
approximately described as platform and henpen as a part of the building.
By a letter dated January 22, 1987 all the District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh were informed regarding companystruction of multi storey buildings on Nazul Land to the effect that the Government has numberobjection for building up multi storey building in the Nazul land as per the procedure prescribed by the Government in the order dated October 16, 1986 provided the balance lease period is more than 15 years and that as per the building companystruction laws, the companystruction of the proposed building is permissible.
The High Court examined the provisions of the lease deed and is of the opinion that the sanction of both the Collector and the Board was number essential and it was sufficient if the Board gave its approval and, in the present case, the Vice Chairman, ADA had given such sanction.
The companytroversy in the present proceeding relates to inclusion of the area of 1752 sq.ft.
The District Magistrate did number companyntersign the sanctioned plan and when the matter was pending before him, another order dated November 10, 1989 had been issued which provided that before allowing residential companystruction of the group housing the premium and rent should be realised on companymercial rates from the lessee and thus the respondents had to pay certain sum towards premium and annual rent at certain rate.
In the revision petition filed by the landlord under Section 25 of the Act, the High Court set aside the order of the trial Court as companyfirmed by the Appellate Authority determined Rs.28,000/ in place of Rs.22,403/ per month as fair rent.
Respondents J U D G M E N T RAJENDRA BABU, J. A lease was granted for a piece of Nazul land bearing plot No.
Based on this Government order it is stated that the plan had been sanctioned by the Vice Chairman, ADA.
Appellants Versus Harminder Pal Singh Anr.
It was also made clear therein that in case of sale of such flats, the real rent should be realised after proportionately distributing the rent between the flat owners.
This petition was companytested both by the State and by the Vice Chairman, ADA.
8, Nashibpur, Baskhtiara, Allahabad to one Begum Mehdi Husain for a period of 30 years from August 21, 1940 with the provision of two further renewals of 30 years.
The said order is under challenge in this appeal.
The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority excluded the said area and assessed the fair rent on the basis of plinth area of 4850 Sq.ft.
On the prayer made by Dr.A.M.Singhvi, learned senior companynsel, the appellant is granted one month time to pay the arrear rent due in companypliance of the order passed by the High Court.
Whether the revisional order dated 24th December, 1999 passed by the High Court of Madras in R.P.No.2317 of 1996 suffers from any serious illegality which warrants interference by this Court is the question for determination in this case.
The fair rent was calculated as Rs.22403/ per month.
P.Mohapatra,J. LITTTTTTJ Leave granted.
In 1983 the Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority ADA sanctioned a plan subject to companyntersigning by the District Magistrate.
The proceeding was initiated on the application filed by the landlords Shri Govindas Purushothamdas and Shri Girdhari Govindas, respondents herein, for fixation of fair rent of the premises under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
