SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) A sub-lease deed was executed in respect of plot No. E-5/8, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in favour of Smt. Kalan on 19. 07. 1972. The property was sold on a Power of Attorney basis to the petitioner herein on 28. 04. 1978, though the nature of transaction was of an agreement for construction along with a general Power of Attorney and Will with a provision that on the failure of the perpetual sub-lease deed to pay the amount in terms of the construction agreement, the property would vest with the petitioner. The agreement to sell was entered into on 20. 12. 1980 for an amount of Rs. 5. 50 lacs and Smt Kalan applied to the respondent for permission to sell the property to the petitioner in 1980.

( 2 ) THE petitioner let out the property to one shri Balbir Singh on 23. 01. 1981, who started running a guest house in a portion of the property in question. In the meantime on 18. 08. 1981, the respondent replied to Smt. Kalan in pursuance to her request for permission to transfer stating that she could apply for permission after expiry of 10 years from execution of the sub-lease and after three years from the date of completion of building,

( 3 ) IN view of the misuser of the property, the DDA cancelled the lease deed on 19. 08. 1983 and Shri Balbir Singh, the tenant, filed a suit, which was registered as Suit No. 907/1983, against the DDA challenging the cancellation of the sub-lease deed. The petitioner was not made a party to the same. A restrained order was passed in January, 1984 against the DDA. Smt. Kalan expired on 08. 02. 1986. Shri Balbir Singh handed over possession of the property to the petitioner in January, 1989 and it is stated that the suit filed by Shri Balbir Singh was ultimately dismissed since the property had been vacated by him and the petitioner occupied the property himself. The petitioner claims that she even took steps in Suit No. 907/ 1983 to be impleaded as a party, but the same was dismissed on 11. 01. 1990 on the ground that the petitioner was not the sub- leasee of the plot in question.

( 4 ) THE petitioner in April, 1990 approached the respondent for transfer of the property in his name on the basis of the documents executed by Smt. Kalan in her favour including the Will. A suit was also filed in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge for restraining the respondent from taking any action for dispossessing the petitioner, but the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a petition before this Court. The petitioner received a letter dated 19. 11. 1992 from the respondent in respect of the mutation and restoration of the sub-lease requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 20,48,814/- as 50% unearned increase along with restoration charges and Rs. 32,604/ -. The petitioner protested agains t the same on 15. 01. 1993, but the petitioner was informed by the respondent on 06. 09. 1993 that he must comply with the condition. A meeting was also held with the Officers of the respondent on 22. 09. 1993. The Officers of the Ministry of Urban Development were also present and a decision is stated to have been taken that only conversion charges would be charged since the scheme of conversion of properties from leasehold into freehold had come into existence. The petitioner made representations thereafter also, but in the absence of favourable response, filed the present writ petition for quashing of the demand raised and for transfer of mutation of the property in his name. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that in terms of the policy of the respondent, they are entitled to charge the restoration charges apart from the normal conversion charges as also the damages for occupying the premises after determination of the sub-lease.

( 5 ) IT may be noticed that the petitioner have applied for conversion of the property into freehold on 13. 12. 1994 and deposited the initial amount. The petitioner availed the benefit of the scheme of payment in instalments o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document