Back
High Court Of Delhi
JASJIT FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Civil Writ 443 of 1975
Decided On : 09/21/1979
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - DELHI DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1957 - GROUND RENT - DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC COMPLEX - MANDAMUS - The petitioners, who were granted a perpetual lease of a plot of land by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the construction of a cinema house, filed writ petitions seeking a mandamus to restrain the DDA from recovering ground rent and to direct the DDA to carry out the development of a civic complex around their cinema houses. The petitioners relied on the principle of promissory estoppel, alleging that the DDA had represented that the area would be developed according to the Master Plan, which induced them to give a high bid for the plot. The DDA denied making any such representations and contended that the petitioners were estopped from denying their liability to pay the ground rent by virtue of the terms of the lease deed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were granted a perpetual lease of a plot of land by the DDA for the construction of a cinema house. They paid the first year's ground rent and constructed the cinema house, which started functioning in September 1970. However, they failed to pay the ground rent for subsequent years, leading to the DDA issuing a demand notice. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a mandamus to restrain the DDA from recovering the ground rent and to direct the DDA to carry out the development of a civic complex around their cinema houses.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had failed to establish that the DDA had made any representations that induced them to give a high bid for the plot. The court found that the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the Home Ministry Instructions, the tender notice, and the terms and conditions of the tender did not amount to any representation or statutory duty that could create a right in favor of the petitioners. The court also held that the petitioners had not suffered any loss or detriment as a result of the alleged inaction or negligence of the DDA.
Issues: 1. Whether the DDA had made any representations to the petitioners that induced them to give a high bid for the plot. 2. Whether the petitioners had suffered any loss or detriment as a result of the alleged inaction or negligence of the DDA. 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a mandamus to restrain the DDA from recovering the ground rent and to direct the DDA to carry out the development of a civic complex around their cinema houses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked in the present case because the petitioners had failed to establish that the DDA had made any representations that induced them to give a high bid for the plot. The court also held that the petitioners had not suffered any loss or detriment as a result of the alleged inaction or negligence of the DDA. Further, the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to a mandamus to restrain the DDA from recovering the ground rent and to direct the DDA to carry out the development of a civic complex around their cinema houses because the transaction was entirely in the realm of contract and not in the realm of public law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have prayed for a mandamus against the Delhi Development Authority (for short D. D. A.) :
1. for restraining the D. D. A. from recovering the ground rent for the plot taken on perpetual lease from the D. D. A. for construction of cinema houses ; and 2. to direct the D. D. A. to carry out and complete the development of civic complex around their cinema houses in ac- cordance with the assurances given to them by the D. D. A. ;writ Petitions Nos. 443 of 1975 and 1041 of 1976 are filed on behalf of the Milan, Cinema at Karampura, Delhi. Writ Petition No. 348 of 1973 is filed on behalf of Deep Cinema at Wazirpur, New Delhi, Writ petition No. 1177 of 1973 is filed on behalf of Payal Cinema Narayana, New Delhi. In support of their claim, the petitioners have relied on the principles of promissory estoppel.
( 2 ) SINCE most of the factual averments and the reliefs claimed are common to all the four writ petitions, we will examine in detail one writ petition, namely, C. W. Petition No. 443 of 1975 as a representative petition.
( 3 ) A plet of land measuring about 2972. 41 Sq. Mts. situate at Shopping Centre, Karampura was given on perpetual lease under the Government Grants Act, 1895 to the petitioners for constructing a cinema house after accepting bid in an open tender. The tenders were invited by D. D. A. for the payment of annual rental/ground rent and not for premium. The land in question belongs to the Union of India but under section 21 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 the D. D. A. is empowered to dispose of the land, inter-alia, by way of lease. On 16th June, 1969, the petitioners submitted a tender for Rs. 2,01,6001- for annual rental of the plot. On 28th September, 1969, the D. D. A. communicated its acceptance of the tender and called upon the petitioners to complete the lease-deed. The first payment of the annual rental was duly paid by the petitioners and possession of the plot was given to them on 26th March, 1970. The cinema house namely, Milan, was constructed by the petitioners and it started functioning from 12th of September, 1970. The petitioners failed to make the payment of the annual rental for the year 1972-73 within the stipulated time. The D. D. A. , therefore, issued a demand notice to the petitioners. According to the terms of the lease-deed, D. D. A. can recover the arrears of annual rental as arrears of land revenue. After receiving the demand notices, the petitioners filed the writ petition on April 3, 1975.
( 4 ) THE petitioners submitted in the writ petition that the D. D. A. represented to them that plots were ideally situated which induced them to give such a high bid of over Rs. 2 Lacs. The petitioners contended that the representation of the Ideal situation led to legitimate expectation that D. D. A. wanted to develop the area around the cinema according to the Master Plan with District Shopping Centre and the residential colonies which would enable them to attract cinema goers of class and quality. It was contended that it was the statutory duty of the D. D. A. to carry out the development according to the Master Plan. It was further contended that contrary to their assurances at the time of filling up tenders, the D. D. A. has failed to carry out the planned development around the cinema and the proposed District Centre. It was averred that in consequence of the neglect of the D. D. A. , the petitioners were suffering loss and had fallen in arrears of the payment of annual rental. The petitioners state that they made several representations to the D. D. A. and even requested the D. D. A. to convert the lease to an outright sale. The petitioners relied upon certain provisions of the Delhi Development Act and contended that there is a mutuality of performance of the contract between the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners performed their part but the respondents did not. The duties to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
