The demand towards unearned incremental charges cannot be sustained and is quashed. The consequent demand for interest would also naturally not arise. The court issued a writ of mandamus quashing the demand raised against the petitioners and declared that the respondent was not entitled to take any action in pursuance to the letter dated 9. 11. 1978. The petitioner is entitled to enjoyment of the property in terms of the sale deed dated 6. 5. 1976 read with the perpetual lease deed dated 5. 2. 1968.

( 1 ) PERPETUAL leasehold rights in respect of plot No. 4, Pusa Road, Road No. 34, New Delhi were granted to one Shri Rai Saheb Lal Mathu;adas vide lease deed dated 15. 3. 1941 by the then Delhi Improvement Trust. A family partition took place in terms whereof the property in question along with the superstructure constructed thereon fell to the share of;one Shri Om Prakash s/o Shri Mathura Dass and his name was mutated in the records. On further partition, the leasehold rights came to be vested with Shri Vinod Kumar s/o Shri Om Prakash and renewed lease deed was executed on 5. 2. 1968. The prescribed user of the premises was residential dwelling house.

( 2 ) DELHI Development Authority, the respondent herein which is the successor to the Delhi Improvement Trust cancelled the lease deed vide letter dated 11. 9. 1974 w. e. f. 4. 9. 1974 on account of there being breaches of the lease committed by the tenants in occupation of the property. The said tenant was subsequently evicted from the premises in pursuance to orders passed by the Supreme Court on account of misuser.

( 3 ) SHRI Vinod Kumar requested for restoration of the lease and vide letter dated 27. 1. 1976, the respondent informed Shri Vinod Kumar that the lease deed could be restored subject to payment of Rs. 2129. 10 which included the misuser charges as well as the restoration charges. This amount was deposited on 30. 1. 1976. However, no formal order for restoration of the lease was issued till 4. 7. 1978.

( 4 ) SHRI Vinod Kumar entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioners for the property in question after permission was granted under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), 1976 on 28. 4. 1976 by the Addl. Secretary, Lease Administration, DDA and Competent Authority and a sale deed was executed on 6. 5. 1976. A mutation letter was also issued in favour of the petitioners on 15. 7. 1978.

( 5 ) THE petitioner received a letter dated 9. 11. 1978 stating therein that the registration of the sate deed in favour of the petitioner was illegal because at that time the lease of the plot stood cancelled and Shri Vinod Kumar and others were not lessees of the plot. Thus, the restoration order was withdrawn. The apparent basis for the issuance of this letter was that though the petitioner had deposited the restoration charges in January, 1976 and the sate deed was executed in May, 1976, the formal letter of restoration of the lease was only issued on 4. 7. 1978.

( 6 ) THE petitioners represented against the said decision and in terms of letter dated 13. 12. 1978, the respondents regularized the sale of the plot w. e. f. 6. 5. 1976 by resorting the lease subject to the payment of 50% incremental value of the land at current market value.

( 7 ) THE petitioners, however, were not satisfied with this imposition and represented against the same on 18. 12. 1978. Thereafter, some communications ensued but no decision was taken for almost 12 years when on 26. 4. 1990, a letter was issued to the petitioner asking for a sum of Rs. 36,33,788. 00 in pursuance to the letter dated 13. 12. 1978 towards incremental value of the land for regularization of the sale deed. The petitioner once again represented against the same and questioned the very basis for imposition of any amount. The petitioner was also granted hearing and it took another 12 years for the respondent to take a decision in terms of the impugned letter dated 15. 4. 2002 stating that the unearned increase amount had been re-worked out at Rs. 3,02,212. 00instead of Rs. 36,33,788. 00 but the petitioner was also liable to pay interest of Rs. 12,76,090/ - on the amount since it was due.

( 8 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the said letter and for declaring that all actions taken by the respondent in pursuance to the letter dated 15. 7. 1978 as null and void.

( 9 ) IN the counter, affidavit filed by the respondent, the demand is sought to be justified on the ba