( 1 ). Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 21st December, 1990 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA Nos. 4435, 4436, 4437, 4985 and 6058 of 1990 in Suit No. 1800 of 199h. By this order the learned Single Judge dismissed the applications of the defendants (appellants herein) seeking rejection of the plaint and allowed the applications of the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) and granted interim mandatory injunction requiring the appellant to issue occupancy certificate and also no objection certificate to respondent No. 1 in respect of two blocks subject to their depositing Rs. 5,00,000. 00 with the appellant and further directed the appellant Delhi Electric Supply Under (hereinafter REFERRED TO as desu ) to grant the electricity connection to the said blocks on furnishing of occupancy certificate to DESU. The learned Single Judge also granted the. injunction restraining the appellant from enforcing the demand of penalty amount raised in their letter dated 29th March, 1990 till the disposal of the suit.

( 2 ). The facts of the case have been given in details in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and we do not deem it necessary to repeat all those facts. However, we may narrate a few facts which are necessary and relevant for deciding these appeals.

( 3 ). Respondent No. l in a public auction held on 17th March, 1976 gave a bid of Rs. 1 crore for getting the perpetual leasehold rights for a commercial plot in Nehru Place District Centre, new Delhi. On 22nd March, 1978 the lay out plans and drawings were submitted by the said respondent to Delhi Urban Art Commission (for short called "duac") which considered the plans in its meetings on 15th April, 1978 and 24th April, 1978 and vide letter dated 17th May, 1978 communicated the approval.

( 4 ). The appellant, Delhi Development Authority (for short called "dda") passed a resolution dated 11th August, 1990 to the effect that maximum 17% of the total floor space built up permitted as commercial and incidental to hotel and the remaining to be used for hotel purposes and further that the space permitted for commercial/incidental to hotel use be not an independent block but be merged with the incidental to hotel activities. The decision taken by the aforesaid resolution was communicated to respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 17th September, 1980.

( 5 ). Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition and challenged the authority of the appellant DDA to restrict the ordinary commercial user of the building area so long as the said respondent was prepared to construct a hotel having accomodation of at least 400 beds. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgement dated 4th November, 1981. By this judgment the learned Single Judge quashed the resolution dated 11th August, 1980 mentioned herein above and directed the DDA to approve the plans, if the same were in accordance with the undertaking dated 29th November, 1977 and guidelines dated 8th January, 1978. The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the DDA as well as by respondent No. 1 by way of Letters Patent Appeals and both these LP As were decided vide judgment dated 1st December, 1979 which is- reported as Delhi Development Authority vs. Nehru Place Hotels Ltd. , ILR (1983) 2 Delhi 187. The appeal filed by the DDA was dismissed and the cross-appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed with the following findings:-

"1. that on the plot in question the plaintiff was obliged to construct a hotel building in which there was to be hotel of 400 beds in which building the remaining area could be used for purposes incidental to the hotel and also as ordinary commercial area; 2. the lease deed dated November 30, 1977, could not be varied by the DDA in exercise of its executive power; 3. the rights of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) under the lease deed could not be encroached upon or in roads made by the DDA as it had no statutor