2011 (2) Supreme 375
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority — Petitioner
versus
Ram Prakash — Respondent
Special Leave Petition(C)No.27278 of 2009
Decided on : 15-3-2011
Facts of the Case :
Respondent herein in the in the instant case purchased a property in an open auction conducted by the DDA. On a routine inspection by petitioner’s staff , it was noticed that respondent was using the basement of the building for office purposes which was in contravention of prescribed usage. When respondent applied to DDA for mutation of the property in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased co-auction purchasers, respondents were asked to pay misuser charges and were called upon to clear the dues in respect thereof. Aggrieved by said demand notice respondents filed a Writ Petition, for quashing demand of misuser charges .Said writ petition was allowed by High Court quashing demand of misuser charges . DDA filed a Letters Patent Appeal, thereagainst which was dismissed.
2. Aggrieved DDA has filed present Special Leave Petition.
Findings of the Court :
Materials on record showed that respondent took prompt steps against tenants for their transgression. During arguments it was indicated that, in fact, one of the tenants had already vacated the portion of the premises occupied by him. However after issuing Show-Cause Notices, petitioner did not take any follow-up action thereupon. Instead, after a lapse of 25 years, petitioner set up a claim on account of charges for the entire period. Held It would be inequitable to allow petitioner which had sat over the matter to take advantage of its inaction in claiming misuser charges. Even where no period of limitation is indicated, the statutory Authority is required to act within a reasonable Time. What would construe a reasonable time, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, but it would not be fair to respondent if such demand was allowed to be raised after 25 years, on account of inaction of petitioner. No reason to interfere with judgment either of Single Judge or of Division Bench of High Court . Special Leave Petition was dismissed
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J. —
1. The Delhi Development Authority, hereinafter, referred to as “DDA” is the petitioner in this Special Leave Petition, which is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.5.2008 passed by the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No.22 of 2008.
2. The respondent herein, along with his mother and wife, purchased a property in No.7, Community Center, East of Kailash, New Delhi, in an open auction conducted by the DDA on 10.8.1969. Possession of the plot was made over to the purchasers on 5th March, 1972, and a lease deed in respect of the said plot was executed on 5th April, 1972. In terms of the Lease Deed, the auction purchasers were required to construct the building upon the demised plot within two years from the date of delivery of possession.
3. It appears that on a routine inspection by the petitioner’s staff on 8th August, 1983, it was noticed that the respondent was using the basement of the building for office purposes which was in contravention of the prescribed usage. A Show-Cause Notice was issued on the same day calling upon the respondent to Show-Cause within 10 days as to why action for cancellation of lease should not be taken for violation of clause II(13) of the Lease Deed. The respondent replied to the said Show-Cause Notice on 10th August, 1983, denying misuse of the property. No further action was taken on the said Show-Cause Notice till seven years later when on 28th June, 1990, another Show-Cause Notice was issued stating as to why the lease should not be determined for violation of clause II(13) of the Lease Deed on the ground that the basement of the building was being misused as an office for Frooti/Atash Industry, instead of storage, and the mezzanine floor was being used for the office of M/s Ferrow Alloys Forging & M/s Green Land, instead of storage.
4. In response to the second Show-Cause Notice the respondent replied stating that the portion in question had been leased to the above-named companies for storage purposes and their failure to abide by the terms of the lease has been brought to the notice of the tenants for taking appropriate steps.
5. Since the reply was not found to be satisfactory, further Show-Cause Notices were issued to the respondent on 3.9.1990 and 11.12.1990 in relation to the violation of the provisions of the Lease Deed and to remove the breaches which had been pointed out, in default whereof the lease would be determined. The respondents replied to the Show-Cause Notice dated 3.9.1990 on 5.11.1990 stating that the tenant was using the basement for storage of Frooti juices and was not operating any office therefrom. It was also mentioned that the tenant in the mezzanine floor had not yet replied to the notice which had been issued to him.
6. However, on the basis of another inspection of the premises conducted in December, 1990, where it was noticed that both the floors were still being misused, notices were issued for joint inspection which was fixed for 18.2.1991, 12.3.1991 and 22.4.1991. However, the respondents did not join the inspection and ultimately an inspection was carried out on 24.4.1991 and another Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondents on 8.5.1991. In response to the said Show-Cause Notice the respondents wrote back on 21.5.1991 that they have no control over the tenants, except to inform them of their violations. Ultimately, the respondents in its letter dated 9.7.1991 stated that the mezzanine floor was being used as offices. In reply to the said letter written on behalf of the respondent the petitioner informed the respondent that as per architectural design the mezzanine floor could be used only for storage and unless the misuse was stopped the lease would have to be determined. In response on 13.11.1991 the respondent once again asserted that the mezzanine floor in the Community Centre was not being misused.
7. Thereafter, there was a series of correspondence exchanged on the same subject. In the meanwhile, Smt. Kamla Ah
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.