The court emphasized the importance of interpreting lease clauses and considering potential legal implications in sanctioning building plans on leased land.

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 9.6.2004 passed by the Principal Director, Directorate of Defence Estates, Ministry of Defence, Western Command, Chandigarh dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders of the Cantonment Board (‘Board’), Delhi, the Respondent No.2 herein, rejecting the application for sanction of a building plan submitted by the petitioner.

2. The facts are that on 25.5.1932 a lease deed was executed by the Secretary of State for Indian Council in favour of M/s. R.S. Bhola Ram & Sons, Delhi 1924 (‘Act’). In terms of this lease deed a plot of land admeasuring 9096 sq.ft. situated at Artillery Road (Plot No.23 maude Road) in Delhi Cantonment was leased to M/s. Bhola Ram & Sons for a nominal rent of Rs. 250 per year for a period of thirty years, renewable for further periods on the terms specified therein. The relevant clauses of the lease deed, for the purposes of the present case, read as under:

“5. Within 36 calendar months next after the date of these presents at their own coats to erect and finish fit for habitation on the premises hereby demised a dwelling house together with all necessary outhouses sewers drains and other appurtenances in accordance with plan or plans to be approval in writing by the Cantonment Authority and not to erect or suffer to be erected on any part of the premises hereby demised any building other than and except the dwelling house and shops hereby covenanted to be erected without the previous consent in writing of the Cantonment Authority.

6. Not to make any alterations in the plan or elevation of the said dwelling house without such consent as aforesaid not to use the same or permit the same to be used for any purpose other than that of a dwelling house and shops without the consent of the Cantonment Authority.

7. At all times during the said term to keep the said dwelling house and shops and premises in good and substantial repair and on the expiration or sooner determination of the said term peaceably to yield up the same in such good and substantial repair unto the Secretary of State.”

It is not in dispute that the lease was kept renewed thereafter. On 8.2.1995 the lease was renewed in favour of the present petitioner for a further period up to31.3.2022.

3. On 27.6.2002 the petitioner submitted an application to the Cantonment Executive Officer for sanction of a building plan whereby it was proposed to construct 24 tenements after demolishing the existing bungalow. The application was placed before the Cantonment Board and the following observations were made on the file: “Considered. The building application received from Shri Som Nath for plot No.23, Maude Road, Delhi Cantt., is as per the existing building bye-laws. Resolved that the same be forwarded to DEO, Delhi Circle, Delhi Cantt for obtaining NOC from land point of view.”

4. Under Section 181 (3) of the Act, an application for sanction of a building plan is required to be referred to the Defence Estates Officer (DEO) “for ascertaining whether there is any objection on the part of Government to such erection or re-erection.” In terms of the above provision, a reference was made to the DEO. Thereafter, on 5.6.2003 the following letter was written by the Board to the petitioner: “To,

Sh. Som Nath, 23 Maude Road, Delhi Cantt.

Subject: BUILDING SUBMITTED BY SH. SOM NATH BUNGLOW NO.23, MAUDE ROAD DELHI CANTT.

Reference your application dated 21.6.2002. The building plans submitted by you are returned herewith duly rejected on the following grounds: i) The proposed construction, if allowed amounts to sub-division of site. ii) Proposed construction of 24 tenaments after demolishing the existing bungalow amounts to massive commercialization and exploitation of land leased on nominal rentals and thus does not conform to purpose and intent for which lease was granted/executed. iii) The subject lease in the last leg of operation and there is no provision or further extensio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document