( 1 ) THE appellant Delhi Development Authority has preferred an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP (C) No. 5523/2004 dated 25. 8. 2004. The appeal itself has been filed after delay of 123 days and thus CM No. 3689/2005 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On perusal of the impugned order and the facts recorded therein it is apparent that this appeal is clearly an abuse of the process of law apart from the aspect of delay in filing the appeal.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3453/2000 which was allowed by the learned single Judge in terms of the order dated 25. 11. 2002. However, in view of the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court, certain directions were passed while allowing the said writ petition.

( 3 ) IT is necessary to set out the facts to appreciate the controversy in question. One Smt. Pushpa Kumari Devi, widow of late Dr. Nagendra singh was the perpetual lessee of a plot bearing No. 15, Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, on which a house had been constructed. Dr. Nagendra Singh had predeceased Smt. Pushpa Kumari Devi. Smt. Pushpa Kumari Devi passed away on 11. 8. 1996 and prior to her demise she had executed a Registered Will dated 24. 5. 1995 bequeathing the property in favour of the respondent. The couple was issueless and according to the averments made in the writ petition, they used to treat the respondent as their own son and had close family relations for over 30 years. The respondent is stated to have spent his childhood in Europe and was a member of the household of Dr. Nagendra singh both in Europe and New Delhi.

( 4 ) THE respondent applied for obtaining Letters of Administration. The respondent also applied to the DDA for mutation of the property in his favour on the basis of the Will, and the appellant DDA vide communication dated 12. 12. 1996 required the respondent to furnish a number of documents, including certain affidavits to the effect that the property had not passed on to the respondent during the life time of the testator and that no monetary consideration had passed for bequeath. These documents were duly furnished by the respondent, but despite this fact, the appellant was willing to mutate the property in favour of the respondent only subject to payment of 50% unearned increase. This was on the basis that as per the clause of the lease deed in case of any transfer or assignment, 50% unearned increase was chargeable.

( 5 ) THE Letters of Administration had been obtained in the meantime and the plea of the respondent was that in view of the Will having been probated, no unearned increase could be chargeable. The respondent had also placed reliance on a Division bench judgment of this Court in Mrs. Vijaya Gursahaney v. DDA and Ors (1994 RLR 67 ). The relevant Guidelines on Land Management issued by the appellant were also relied upon by the respondent including Clause 13. 13. In terms of the said clause a property could be transferred to a person outside of blood relations on the basis of the will subject to furnishing of certain documents. These documents were to establish that there was only a bequeath without any consideration. In such a case no unearned increase was chargeable, as in the case of blood relations.

( 6 ) CIVIL Writ Petition No. 3453/2000 was resisted by the DDA on the ground that the judgment of the Division Bench in Mrs. Vijaya Gursahaney ?ts case (supra) had been impugned by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme court. It was also contended that the Will does not carry a recital that it had been executed out of love and affection, which was the prerequisite for application of clause 13. 13. The said clause reads as under:- ?othe property may be transferred to a person outside blood- relation (who is not within the definition of family member (s) on the basis of Will, but the documents as mentioned in following pages are required to be submitted