Liability to pay unearned increase is calculated with respect to the cost of the land as it prevailed on the date of the application for permission to sell, and there must be justification for the claim of interest.

( 1 ) RULE. D. B.

( 2 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the demand of the respondents for a sum of Rs. 4,49,226. 00 on account of 50% being claimed as unearned increase and interest @ 18% p. a. on the said amount.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the petitioner No. 1 had agreed to sell her house to petitioner No. 2 and in June 1984, an application had been made to the Delhi Development Authority for grant of permission to sell. A formal agreement to sell was executed on 15th January, 1985. Thereafter, again an application for permission to sell was filed on 25th August, 1986.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the respondents, no documents had been filed by the petitioner and the application was incomplete. It is further alleged by the respondents that the petitioner No. 1 s attorney was called on 24th January, 1986, and 22nd May, 1986 for clarification. It is further alleged that documents were supplied only in May, 1986. Thereafter, no action seems to have been taken by the respondents till the issuance of the impugned letter.

( 5 ) IN our opinion, petitioner No. 1 is liable to pay unearned increase calculated with respect to the cost of the land as it prevailed on 25th August 1986, the date on which application was filed by the attorney of petitioner No. 1. This is the prayer in the writ petition.

( 6 ) THERE may be delay in the grant of the permission but permission when granted must relate back to the date of the application for grant permission. This being so, unearned increase can be charged only with reference to 25th August, 1986. It is not clear before us as to what is the amount of unearned increase with reference to this date. Counsel for petitioner No. 1, therefore states that petitioner No. 1 is willing to deposit with the respondent the principal amount of Rs 4,49,226. 00 claimed by the respondents subject to the adjustment and refund which may have to be made by the respondents on their calculating the unearned increase with reference to 25th August, 1986. According to Mr. Sikri it is possible that this figure of Rs. 4,49,226. 00 has been arrived at by reference to the date of 25th August, 1986, but he is not certain whether this is so. The learned counsel for petitioner No, 1 has handed over to the counsel for the respondents today in Court a draft of Rs. 4,49,226. 00. This is without prejudice to the petitioners contention that the amount of unearned increase will ultimately work out to be less than this.

( 7 ) WITH regard to interest, in our opinion, there is no justification for the claim of the same. It is the respondents who delayed in granting permission to sell to the petitioner. In fact, for a. period of over four years permission was not granted to the petitioners. If time is calculated from 25th August 1986 actually the first application was filed in June, 1984. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. If they had granted the permission earlier, then there may have been some justification for claim of interest but we do not make any comment in respect thereof. Even if it be assumed that interest can be charged, though this is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion on the facts of this case, there is no jusitfication for the respondents raising any demand for interest. The demand of interest by the respondents is, therefore,. quashed.

( 8 ) BY letter dated 11th September, 1990 the sub-lease of the plot in question, namely, C-624, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was sought to be cancelled by the respondents. This was for the reason that the petitioners bad not deposited the said sum of Rs. 4, 49, 226. 00 plus interest @ 18% p. a. thereon. In view of the fact that a sum of Rs. 4, 49, 226. 00 has been deposited and we have quashed the demand for interest @ 18% p. a. , it must necessarily follow that the aforesaid letter dated 11th September, 1990 determining the sub-lease must also be quashed. Ordered accordingly.

( 9 ) THE res