Mahinder Narain, J.

( 1 ) THE application 1,a. 265 of 1991 has been moved in Suit No. 2986 of 1989 for recording compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code.

( 2 ) BY an order dated 22. 1. 1990, this Court (A B. Saharya, J) called upon the standing counsel for the Delhi Development Authority to assist the Court to determine whether the compromise which was being proposed, is lawful or not. Full set of papers was required to be delivered to the Standing Counsel for the Delhi Development Authority, and I have heard Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Advocate, on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority.

( 3 ) THE facts which are not in dispute, are that plot No. 16, in the lay-out plan of the Community Centre, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi, admeasuring 104. 05 sq. meters was purchased by Tarlochan Singh, defendant No. 1. A perpetual lease with regard to the said plot was executed. This perpetual lease-deed is dated 26. 8. 1977. This was executed between the President of India and Tarlochan Singh.

( 4 ) IT is also not in dispute that Tarlochan Singb applied to the Delhi Development Authority on 17. 1 1 1988, to have the said plot in the names of himself, Smt. Gurdev Kaur his wife, Inderjit Singh and Harjit Singh, his sons.

( 5 ) BY letter dated 5. 12. 1988, the Delhi Development Authority agreed to make all the aforesaid persons co-lessees with respect to plot No. 16, Community Centre, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi, in the following proportions:-The Delhi Development Authority also informed the said co-lessees that ail other terms and conditions of the auction/lease deed will be binding on all the co-lessees.

( 6 ) BY the present application, the said co-lessees seek to have portions of the building built on the plot, declared as owned by them as follows :- Inderjit Singh, plaintiff No. 1 : Whole of the second floor Harjit Singh, plaintiff No. 2 : Whole of the basement Tarlochan Singh defendant No. 1 : Whole of the Ground and first floors. Smt. Gurdev Kaur, defendant No. 2 : Whole of the third floor and the terrace.

( 7 ) BY the compromise which is sought to be made a basis of the decree to be passed by this Court, the parties agree that plot No 16, on which the bailding has been built, shall remain undivided, and as stated above, the shares of the parties in the plot would be in accordance with what the Delhi. Development Authority has agreed.

( 8 ) WHAT was required to be considered is whether what was being proposed by this compromise was lawful, in other words in accordance with the terms of the perpetual lease which has been executed. For this purpose, it is necessary to look at the provisions of Clause 2 of the perpetual lease. The said clause reads as under :- 2. The Lessee shall not deviate in any manner from the lay-out plan or alter the size of the plot whether by sub-division, amalgamation or otherwise, unless specifically permitted to do so by the Lessor.

( 9 ) MR. Jayant Bhushan also referred to clause 4 (a) of the lease, which reads as under :- 4 (a ). The Lessee shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with possession of the whole or any part of the commercial plot exceptwith the previous consent in writing of the Lessor which he shall be entitled to refuse in his absolute discretion. PROVIDED that such consent shall not be given for a period of ten years from the commencement of this Lease unless, in the opinion of the Lessor, exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of such consent. PROVIDED FURTHER that in the event of the consent being given the Lessor way impose such terms and conditions as be thinks fit and the Lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover a portion of the unearned increase in the value (i. e. the difference between the premium paid and the market value) of the plot at teh time of sale trnsfer, assignment, or parting with the possession the amount to be recovered being fifty percent of the unearned increase and the decision of the Lessor in respect of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document