The main legal point established in the judgment is that the demand of additional unearned increase and composition fee by the DDA was well justified based on the petitioner's earlier payment, policy guidelines, and the lease deed clause permitting the Lessor to demand the unearned increase.

1. Quashing of DDA’s demand of 22nd February, 2008 for additional unearned increase and composition fee with interest as a pre-condition to convert premises no. D-79, East of Kailash, New Delhi (henceforth referred to as ‘subject premises’) from leasehold to freehold, is sought in this petition.

2. The background facts as projected by the petitioner are that subject to petitioner undertaking to pay additional unearned increase if demanded by DDA after finalization of the policy, the subject property was mutated in May, 1990 in the name of petitioner upon payment of unearned increase of Rs.18,750/-. Thereafter, petitioner claims to have requested the respondent to extend the time for raising construction on the subject premises and vide representation of 16th September, 1991 had sought exemption from payment of composition fee as petitioner’s request for mutating the subject premises was pending with DDA for a decade. As per the petitioner, she was granted an audience by the then Lt. Governor of Delhi in December, 1991 and an assurance was given that the demand of composition fee would be waived and thereafter the respondent had remained silent. Petitioner had applied in January, 2005 for conversion of subject premises from leasehold to freehold, along with conversion charges and relevant documents to the DDA.

3. In February, 2008, petitioner had received DDA’s demand of Rs.6,51,018/- as unearned increase with interest thereon @ 18% per annum with effect from 10th June, 1990 up to date of deposit with further demand of Rs.1,18,145/- as composition fee with interest thereon @ 18% per annum with effect from 19th December, 1990 up to date of deposit, which is impugned in this petition.

4. To justify the impugned demand of 22nd February, 2008 (Annexure –S), the stand taken by the respondent is that when petitioner had applied for mutation of the subject premises in the year 1980, there was no policy to mutate the DDA properties on the basis of the Will, in the name of persons who were not in the line of succession and since the Will was probated, the mutation of the subject premises was carried out in the name of petitioner subject to payment of unearned increase, which petitioner did and had also undertaken to pay the additional unearned increase upon finalization of DDA’s policy in respect of the unearned increase chargeable. Thus, according to respondent, petitioner cannot wriggle out of the liability to pay the unearned increase and the composition fee as demanded. Though, initially the stand of the respondent was that the Will in favour of petitioner had not suggested any monetary consideration but in the Additional Affidavit of 21st April, 2011, filed by respondent in terms of the order of 4th February, 2011, upon reconsideration of the Demand, it was scaled down to Rs. 2,26,685/- and true factual position was disclosed, which was duly supported by documents.

5. Respondent’s aforesaid Additional Affidavit reveals that the subject premises had changed hands not simply on basis of the Will of 29th August, 1973 in favour of petitioner but was accompanied by Special Power of Attorney in favour of husband of the petitioner. Though consideration for the execution of the Special Power of Attorney is not disclosed in this document (Annexure A-5), but its bare perusal reveals that on the strength of this document coupled with the aforesaid Will (Annexure A-4), respondent had reasonably concluded in its Additional Affidavit that through the aforesaid Special Power of Attorney and Will, the subject premises was actually sold to petitioner. Respondent’s office noting of 20th January, 1989 (Annexure A-11) to the Additional Affidavit does indicate that the opinion of respondent’s Deputy Director of the Will in question seemingly not disclosing any monetary consideration was not accepted by the Vice-Chairman of respondent and rightly so, as on perusal of respondent’s Additional Affidavit and the documents accompanying it, what emerge