VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE facts of the case are that the Petitioner had purchased property bearing No. 48, Hanuman Road, New delhi. He had applied for the conversion of the said property into freehold in consonance with the prevailing Policy of the Respondent. In that connection a sum of Rs. 97,02,000/- has already been paid to the L and DO as the demanded Conversion Charges.

( 2 ) IT appears that the erstwhile Tenant had been misusing the property. Misuse Charges were computed by the L and DO for a sum of Rs. 38,92,994/ -. That Demand had been challenged in CWP No. 796/1995 and the assault had been accepted in terms of the Judgment dated 30. 9. 1996. It had been held that the Respondents were entitled only to recovery of one per cent as a token penalty under clause 8 of the Office Order No. 23/76 dated 31. 3. 1976. The Respondents have filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the aforementioned Judgment dated 30. 9. 1996. Admittedly, a stay of the impugned Judgment has not been granted. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that it is not Clause 8 alone which is relevant but also Clauses 9 and 10. He contends that in cases of misuser which are governe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document