Point of Law : Non-payment of Lease premium - in ordinary circumstances, the terms of the lease deed or allotment letter will bind parties. However, that does not mean that in a given fact situation such as this the Court is precluded from holding that there has been waiver and/or in holding that CIDCO is precluded from claiming interest on interest or interest contrary to the Regulation.

JUDGMENT :

S.J.KATHAWALLA & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

1. The present common judgment disposes of the above three Petitions as the issue raised therein is virtually identical. The issue in the three Petitions broadly pertains to the Petitioners' contention that Respondent No.1, CIDCO (hereinafter "CIDCO") has wrongfully withheld delivery of possession of the subject plots and has deprived the Petitioners of possession of their respective plots for approximately 15 years, eventually purporting to cancel the allotment letters in favour of the Petitioners.

2. The Petitioners, in the written submissions furnished by them, have provided a table of the details pertaining to the three Petitions which may usefully be reproduced verbatim hereunder as the same sets out the relevant details pertaining to each of the plots forming the subject matter of the respective Petitions.

Sr. Nos. Particulars Shivaji Pandurang Chumble Kalpana Shivaji Chumble Waman Pandurang Chumble

1. Writ Petition No. 9434 of 2016 9447 of 2016 9445 of 2016

2. Allotment Order Date 08.12.2005 (Pg. 38) 08.12.2005 (Pg. 36) 06.03.2006 (Pg. 66)

3. Details of the Plot allotted Plot No.21, Sector A-1, NH Kartik at New Nasik. Plot No. 20, Sector A-1, NH Kartik at New Nasik. Plot No.19, Sector A-1, NH Kartik at New Nasik.

4. Area 340.265 sq. meter 331.50 sq. meter 351.50 sq. Meter

5. Rate as per Allotment orders Rs. 5,152/- per sq. mtr. Rs.4,513/- per sq. mtr. Rs.2,911/-per sq. mtr.

6. Total Lease Premium Payable Rs.17,53,046/- Rs.14,96,060/- Rs.9,64,996.50/-

7. Payments which were to made as per Allotment Order i. Rs. 1,00,000/-paid on 11.11.2005

ii. Rs. 8,26,523/- first instalment to be paid on or before 20.01.2006

iii. Rs. 8,26,523/- second instalment to be paid on or before 20.02.2006 i. Rs.1,00,000/- paid on 11.11.2005

ii. Rs. 6,98,030/- first instalment to be paid on or before 20.01.2006

iii. Rs. 6,98,030/- second instalment to be paid on or before 20.02.2006 i. Rs.1,00,000/-paid on 16.11.2005

ii. Rs.4,32,498.25 first instalment to be paid on or before 06.04.2006

iii. Rs.4,32,498.25 second instalment to be paid on or before 06.05.2006.

8. Details of the payment made by the Petitioners i. Rs. 1,00,000/- paid on 11.11.2005 (Pg. No. 31)

ii. Rs. 4,50,000/- paid on 13.3.2006 (Pg. No. 48)

iii. Rs. 4,00,000/- paid on 24.4.2007 (Pg. No. 47)

iv. Rs. 7,00,000/- paid on 14.1.2008 (Pg. No. 46)

v. Rs. 1,03,046/- paid on 18.12.2008

i. Rs. 1,00,000/- paid on 11.11.2005 (Pg. No. 30)

ii. Rs. 4,00,000/- paid on 13.3.2006 (Pg. No. 46)

iii. Rs. 4,00,000/- paid on 24.4.2007 (Pg. No. 47)

iv. Rs.4,90,000/-paid on 14.1.2008 (Pg. No. 44)

v. Rs.1,06,060/-paid on 18.12.2008 (Pg. No. 45)

i. Rs. 1,00,000/- paid on 16.11.2005 (Pg No.41)

ii. Rs. 4,995/- paid on 19.12.2008 (Pg No.42)

iii. Rs. 1,60,000/- paid on 21.11.2007 (Pg. No. 43)

iv. Rs. 1,50,000/- paid on 29.3.2007 (Pg. No.44)

v. Rs. 1,00,000/- paid on 3.5.2007 (Pg No.45)

vi. Rs. 3,00,000/-paid on 13.3.2006 (Pg. No.46)

vii. Rs. 1,50,000/- paid on 13.12.2006 (Pg. No. 47)

viii.Rs.1,41,315/- paid on 18.10.2010 (Pg. No.50)

3. Broadly stated, it is CIDCO's contention, with which the Petitioners are aggrieved, that the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.9434 of 2016 ("Shivaji") and 9447 of 2016 ("Kalpana") are required to pay Delayed Payment Charges ("DPC") on account of certain alleged delays in making payment of the Lease Premium. CIDCO contends that it was justified in not handing over the subject plots to the Petitioners and in eventually cancelling the allotments on account of the alleged non-payment of the above DPC. Admittedly, there is an interim stay order passed by this Court on the cancellation of the allotments.

4. As far as Writ Petition No.9445 of 2016 ("Waman") is concerned, it appears that certain DPC payments have been made and there is no claim by CIDCO that any DPC is payable as far as Waman is concerned or that any amount is payable as on date. This is borne out inter alia from the chart furnished by CIDCO giving its calculation of DPC, in the course of the hearing.

5.