JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J.

The present appeal under Clause X of Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 18th February 2015 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(C) 1509/2011 wherein the question of maintainability of the writ petition has been decided against the Appellant.

Factual Background

2. The scope of the present appeal, though a limited one, has several aspects that require us to go into the facts. This is necessary in order to decide the challenge in the present appeal in proper perspective.

3. The present case has a long history. SBI Staff Residents welfare society (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent Society") and its members filed writ petitions before this Court in the year 1993. It is their case that the Respondent Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and has been founded for the welfare of 132 employees and ex-employees of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the "SBI"). The society and its Members claim that Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DDA) had constructed certain flats and handed over the same to the Appellant for further allotment to its lower income group employees.

4. The Respondent Society further claims that on 6th October 1971, in accordance with Delhi Development Authority Regulation 1968, DDA formulated a scheme for allotment of flats to persons belonging to lower income group. Under this scheme, huge number of flats were constructed by DDA at various places including Lawrence Road, the subject matter of the present case. DDA offered the flats to several government corporations. SBI approached DDA for including them under the scheme for its employees belonging to lower income group.

5. Respondent Society relied upon certain internal notings of DDA, to contend that that DDA considered the request of SBI for allotment of flats at Lawrence Road area. It is also averred that some of the members of the society received allotment letters and possession of the flats some time in 1974. The members of the Respondent Society contend that SBI instead of abiding by the terms of scheme formulated by DDA, allotted the flats to them on leave and license basis. The employees, who are members of the Respondent Society made a representation to SBI as well as DDA stating that they should be allotted flats on ownership basis. It is further alleged that the conveyance deed and the perpetual lease deed executed by DDA in favour of SBI on 27th November 1986, was without the knowledge of the members of the Respondent Society.

6. Sometime in October-November 1989 the allottee-employees on reaching their superannuation, began to receive eviction orders issued by SBI Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act 1971. The allottee challenged such orders by filing petition under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act 1971 before the Court of District Judge Delhi.

7. On 8th October 1990, DDA informed SBI, that it had decided not to execute any conveyance deed in favour of any individual employee occupying the flats unless SBI expressly requested to do so.

8. In 1991, the District Judge remanded the cases to the SBI Estate Officer for fresh consideration. The Estate Officer on reconsideration again came to the conclusion that the employees who had superannuated and were retaining the flats were unauthorised occupants and ordered them to vacate the same.

9. Some of the employees filed writ petitions bearing no. W.P.(C) 779/1993 and W.P.(C) 1151/1993 before this Court seeking stay of the eviction orders. Respondent Society claims that during the proceedings, SBI officials assured them that employees would not be evicted from the flats and accordingly the Respondent Society (Petitioners in the writ petitions) withdrew the aforementioned writ petitions. The withdrawal orders become the subject matter of the controversy in the present appeal. The orders of withdrawal read as under:

"23.08.1993

CM No.779-1993 & 1331/1993

After some arguments, coun