Back
2003 Supreme(Del) 850
High Court Of Delhi
RAJ RANI - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
CIVIL WRIT PETITION 6599 of 2002
Decided On : 09/09/2003
Sangita CHANDRA, Sonali Malhotra Sehgal, SUNIL MALHOTRA
The court emphasized that the grounds for termination of a lease must be legally sustainable, and the usage of property for commercial purposes must be proven with evidence.
Headnote:
lease - unauthorized construction - weigh bridge - clauses II (2), II (11), II (12) - Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985
Fact of the Case:
A perpetual lease was executed in favor of the petitioners for an industrial plot. The petitioners were alleged to have made unauthorized construction for installing a weigh bridge, leading to the termination of the lease by the respondent authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the show-cause notice and termination of the lease were based on grounds not sustainable in law. The petitioners' contention that the weigh bridge was only for their own use was accepted, and the impugned orders were quashed. The deposited amount was ordered to be refunded to the petitioners.
Issues: Violation of lease clauses, unauthorized construction, commercial use of industrial plot, demand for restoration charges
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grounds for termination of the lease were not sustainable, and the weigh bridge usage for commercial purposes was not proven. The petitioners' undertaking to use the weigh bridge only for themselves was accepted.
Final Decision: The impugned orders terminating the lease and demanding restoration charges were quashed, and the deposited amount was ordered to be refunded to the petitioners. The rule was made absolute, and each party was left to bear their own costs.
( 3 ) A perpetual lease was executed dated 20. 04. 1972 in favour of the petitioners in respect of plot No. A - 74, Naraina Industrial Area Phase -I, New Delhi measuring 1941 sq. yds. for all industries allowed under the Master Plan for Delhi except acid and chemicals, cold storages, ice factories and food products. The petitioners constructed on the said plot and was issued the occupancy certificate.
( 4 ) THE petitioners received a show-cause notice dated 08. 01. 2002 alleging that there was unauthorised construction to the extent that a weigh bridge in front side of the open space of the premises had been installed and the same was in violation of the terms and conditions of the clauses of the lease deed being clauses II (2 ). II (11) and II (12 ). The said clauses are as under:-
"ii. The Lessee for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns covenants with the Lessor in the manner following that is to say: - (2) The lessee shall not deviate in any manner from the lay-out plan nor alter the size of the industrial plot whether by sub-division, amalgamation or otherwise. (11) The Lessee shall not without sanction or permission in writing of the proper municipal or other authority creet any building or make any alteration or addition to such building on the industrial plot. "
( 5 ) IN response to the said notice, the petitioners sent a reply dated 28. 01. 2002. The petitioners denied that any construction was made and stated that it was fully open, but the petitioners had only put the foundation to make a grip of a weigh machine, which machine was approved by Government authority. The petitioners were, once again, issued a final show-cause notice dated 30. 01,2002 alleging the same violation, to which a reply was sent on 14. 02. 2002 reiterating what was stated earlier in the reply.
( 6 ) AN order dated 09. 05. 2002 was passed by the respondent authority determining the lease of the petitioners, which was communicated vide letter dated 22. 05. 2002. In the letter, it was stated that there is unauthorised construction in open space for an illegal weigh bridge dharam Kanta of a capacity more than 60 tons.
( 7 ) THE petitioners soon thereafter filed an application dated 25. 06. 2002 for purpose of carrying on commercial activity in respect of the weigh bridge, which has been installed in an area of 24 sq. mtrs. , and deposited necessary charges.
( 8 ) THE petitioners also made a representation dated 25. 06. 2002 for restoration of the lease and property of the petitioners was sealed and, thus, the petitioners also made a request for removal of seal vide letter dated 23. 09. 2002.
( 9 ) THE respondent issued a letter dated 30. 09. 2002 to the petitioners seeking to restore the lease subject to the petitioners paying restoration charges and charges for de-sealing and removal of the unauthorised Dharam Kanta within 15 days. The provisional amount demanded was as under:-
"restoration charges Rs. 488900. 00}
DE-SEALING charges Rs. 15000. 00}
PROVISIONAL Maintenance charges, Rs. 5000. 00}"
( 10 ) THE petitioners also got the weigh bridge inspected and certified by the Office of the Controller dealing with the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985.
( 11 ) AT the stage of issuance of notice in the writ petition, the petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and the premises were directed to be de-sealed by the respondent, which was confirmed on 25. 02. 2003.
( 12 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that ODA had cancelled the lease deed of the petitioners, since the petitioners were and are carrying on commercial activity in the industrial plot, which is totally contrary to the terms of the lease and the purpose for which the plot was purchased. Reliance in this behalf has been placed
