( 1 ) A backdrop of events of this case in brief are that Mr. S P Kapur, father of the petitioner, was enrolled as a member of the respondent-Soceity on 30. 6. 1961. After the death of father of the petitioner his wife, Mrs. Vimal Kapur, was made a member on 23. 6. 1966. However, on the representation of Mrs. Vimal Kapur, wife of late Mr. S P Kapur, the deposit and share certificate were transferred in favour of the petitioner on 23. 7. 1966. Petitioner made various payments to the respondent-Society. On 27. 6. 1971, petitioner married one Mr. Ranjit Nagrath. Respondent-Society wrote to the petitioner to File fresh affidavit by 21. 10. 1971 that she or her husband or any other dependent member does not own a house or plot of land in Delhi. In the meanwhile, respondent-Society was allotted additional land of 1. 7 acres and thereafter respondent No. 1 raised a demand against the members to pay Rs. 55/= per sq. yds. for developing the said land. The next date of the draw of lot was Fixed by the respondent as 30. 6. 1979 and on 19. 7. 1979 respondents informed the petitioner that she was allotted a plot No. 7 measuring 371. 10 sq. yds. Respondent-Society demanded other amounts, which were duly paid by the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE problem started on 18. 2. 1982. Respondent No. 3-Dclhi Development Authority (in short "dda") wrote to the petitioner that it came to its knowledge that plot No. 2, Tolstoy Marg, New. Delhi stood in the name of her husband and that she had also got the membership on transfer from her father in whose favour Plot No. G-32, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi stood. Petitioner replied the said letter staling therein that at the relevant time when her father became member under the Bombay Cooperative Sodeites Act, no such stipulation was in existence and requested the respondent-DDA to execute the lease deed in her favour. She had been representing to the respondent that the father of the petitioner was governed by the old bye-laws and the old Act and was a valid member and she was qualified under the new Act to remain a member and entitled for allotment of plot and execution of sub-lease.

( 3 ) MR. G L Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the bye-laws of the Society were amended in the year 1969 and as the petitioner was made a member in 1967 after the death of her father, she remains a valid member. Mr. Sanghi laid stress that the superior lessor, i. e. the DDA, Firstly on 28. 12. 1971 wrote a letter to the respondent-Society that there was no objection to the allotment of plot to the petitioner in view of her marriage as she fulfilled all qualifications for membership at the time of enrollment and subsequently letter dated 31. 7. 1987 was also written by the Delhi Development Authority to the effect that the objections of Society had been examined and directed the Society to execute sub-lease in favour of the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid letters, Society could not take the plea that no sub-lease be executed in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Sanghi has contended that even the stamp papers for execution of sub-lease were delivered in the office of respondent-Society and at that belated stage, respondent cannot defeat the right of the petitioner by refusing to execute the sublease as it would amount to defeating the right, which vested in the petitioner by nonaction on the part of the respondents. It has been further contended that the petitioner again on 15. 10. 1987 wrote a letter giving seven days to the Society to submit lease deed papers without requiring a fresh affidavit, which was asked for by the Society on 25. 9. 1987 from the petitioner.

( 4 ) IT seems that when petitioner failed to give affidavit to the Society, the respondent- Society ceased the membership of the petitioner on 22. 2. 1988. The said letter reads as under I -

". . . . . . . . . . . . . With reference to your letter dated the 12th February, 1988, on the above-mentioned subject, I am de