A fresh cause of action allows for the filing of a new writ petition, as established by the principles in the cited cases.

Siddharth Mridul, J.

1. This order will dispose of the threshold objection raised by the Respondent No. 2 (The State Bank of India) on the maintainability of the present writ petition. The petitioner herein seeks the following reliefs:

(a) Issue an appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 2 to release the retirement benefits amounting to over one crore two lakh sixty five thousand eight hundred and eighty eight with interest to the Petitioner society.

(b) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ certiorari or mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to allot the flats In respect of names of the petitioners occupying/entitled to the flats out of 132 flats in issue.

(c) Issue writ, order or direction directing the lease deed dated 27.11.1986 between respondent No. 1 & 2 to be null and void.

(d) Allow the petitioner to amend the petition if necessary to bring out other prayers and reliefs if necessary.

(e) Issue any other order/direction that this court may deem fit.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present objection are enunciated in the succeeding paragraphs.

3. In 1971, Respondent No. 1 (DDA) launched a scheme for low income group housing under which, persons with income less than Rs. 7200 per month were to be allotted flats at various places in Delhi. After the introduction of the said scheme, various government agencies approached the DDA for purchase of flats for allotment to its employees. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 2 (State Bank of India) purchased 132 flats at Lawrence Road, Delhi – 110035 under the said scheme.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner, that instead of adhering with the terms laid down by the DDA to allot flats on ownership basis to economically weaker sections of the society, the Respondent No. 2 converted the subject flats into staff society and started issuing leave and license agreements with its employees. Whereas the Respondent No. 2 denied the contention of the Petitioner society that the subject flats were allotted on ownership basis to the lower income group employees. It was stated that the members of the petitioner society entered into the possession of the subject flats on allotment by Respondent No. 2 to its employees on leave and license basis.

5. On 27 November 1986, conveyance deed and perpetual deed were prepared between DDA and SBI.

6. Thereafter, a letter dated 01.09.1989 was issued by the Commissioner (Housing), DDA to the Joint Secretary, PMO communicating the decision to regularize the allotment of the subject flats in favour of individual employees who were in possession of these flats.

7. In October - November 1989 on retirement from service, the members of the petitioner society received eviction orders from The State Bank Estate Officer under the Public Premise Act, 1971. An appeal impugning the said order was filed under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 before the Court of the Learned District judge. On 02.03.1991, the Learned District Judge remanded the case back to the Estate Officer for reconsideration, as adequate opportunity of being heard was not granted to the petitioner society. Vide the order dated 04.01.1993, the Estate Officer held that the employees are unauthorized occupants in their respective flats and ordered vacation of the subject flats within 15 days of receipt of the order.

8. On 08.10.1990, the DDA wrote a letter to the Manager (Estate), SBI wherein it stated that the Vice Chairman, DDA had taken a decision of not executing the conveyance deed in favour of individual employees.

9. Three writ petitions being CW. 2227/1992, CW. 779/1993 and CW. 1151/1993 were filed before this court by the employees impugning the order of the Estate Officer. The aforesaid writ petitions were later withdrawn. Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 stated that he was able to get certified copies of only two of the three writ petitions, i.e., CW. 779/1993 and CW. 1151/