Lokeshwar Prasad, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the above mentioned writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, raise common questions for consideration, the same, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In all the writ petitions, plots of land, situated in the Vicinity of Connaught Place and India Gate, were auctioned and in respect of those plots of landws, so disposed of by auction, a separate perpetual lease deed,with identical terms, in respect of each such plot, was executed in favour of the auction purchasers by the then Secretary of State for India in Council through the then Commissioner, Delhi. Thereafter by several subsequent acts and assignments in law, the perpetual lease hold rights in respect of the abovesaid plots of land have been transferred in favour of the petitioners in the present writ petitions. Thus, it is not in dispute that each of the petitioners in the present writ petitions is the recognised lessee in respect of the plot in question so purchased by him. Initially, in terms of the lease deeds, on the plots in question, a single storeyed residential house was constructed. The present dispute in these writ petitions relates to an era when the construction of multi-storeyed buildings had just commenced in the city of Delhi. One of the major issues requiring consideration is regarding the terms on which the respondents can permit the change of user of residential premises to a multi-storeyed commercial premises. Practically, in most of the writ petitions, the petitioners, after obtaining the sanction of the building plans from the local authority, like the New Delhi Municipal Committee, have already constructed multi storeyed buildings consisting of flats. In some of the cases, the flats, so constructed in the multi-storeyed structures, have too been disposed of and thus have changed hands. The Land and Development Officer (hereinafter referred to as the L and DO ), on behalf of the lessor, in some of the cases has taken action by issuing a show cause notice to the concerned lessee for determining the lease and exercising right of re-entry on the ground that the lessee has violated the terms of the lease by constructing a multi-storeyed building thereby changing the user of the land without obtaining prior permission of the lessor in terms of the lease.

( 2 ) PRACTICALLY, in all the petitions, the petitioners have disputed the validity of the notices of re-entry and have sought for consequential directions to the respondents such as restraining them from taking possession of the building or in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the leased land and the building standing thereon.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, as the record of proceedings before the Court shows, during the course of hearing, the emphasis shifted on settlement by revision of the terms of the leases on which the petitioners were holding the pieces of land. It was not disputed during the course of hearing by either party that the respondents were not serious about exercising their right of re-entry pursuant to the notices issued in that regard so long as petitioners were agreeable to suitable revision of the terms and conditions of the leases so as to benefit the lessor also or in other words so long as the lessees were reasonably prepared, to part with a fraction of the benefits, earned by them, by constructing multi-storeyed flats/complexes, to the lessor. To highlight this factual statement, we may specifically refer to some of the orders passed by the Court, through different Benches, seized of the hearing, from time to time.

( 4 ) IN CWP217/73 on 24. 9. 1982, the Division Bench passed the following order:

"this order will cover not only this case but also other similar cases which are listed together or are shown on today s and yesterday s Board. During the course of hearing of this case and some other matters it has be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document