Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
M/s Premier Enterprises & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Office of The Commissioner of Inductries & Ors.
And – Respondent
LPA 144 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 9511 of 2023, 9512 of 2023, 9513 of 2023, 9514 of 2023, 9515 of 2023 with LPA 432 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 25229 of 2023, 25230 of 2023, 25231 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023
PP Act - Lease Deed Violation - 5(1) - 217/2010, 4257/2007 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the violation of the Lease Deed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, specifically focusing on Section 5(1) and the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed. The court also examined the Conversion Scheme for industrial plots from leasehold to freehold and its applicability to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The Lessee violated the terms of the Lease Deed by selling the premises without consent, using it for unauthorized purposes, and failing to challenge the termination of the Lease Deed. The Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority passed eviction orders, and the representation for conversion from leasehold to freehold was rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Orders of the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority, as well as the rejection of the conversion representation, stating that the Lessee's violations were established, and the Conversion Scheme did not apply due to the termination of the Lease Deed and the eviction orders.
Issues: Violation of Lease Deed terms, applicability of Conversion Scheme, and rejection of conversion representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Lessee's violations of the Lease Deed, termination of the Lease Deed, and eviction orders justified the rejection of the conversion representation under the applicable Conversion Scheme.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the court upheld the Orders of the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority, as well as the rejection of the conversion representation.
JUDGMENT
1. LPA 144/2023 is directed against the Order dated 23.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 217/2010 and LPA 432/2023 is directed against the Order dated 23.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 4257/2007.
2. The Appellants herein were Writ Petitioners in the abovementioned Writ Petitions.
3. W.P.(C) 217/2010 was filed by the Appellant in LPA 144/2023 seeking for quashing of the Order dated 13.02.2003, passed under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, l97l (hereinafter referred to as " the PP Act") passed by the Estate Officer, and Order dated 30.10.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Court") in PPA No. 4/08/03.
4. W.P.(C) 4257/2007 was filed by the Appellant in LPA 432/2023 seeking for quashing and setting aside letter dated 21.03.2007, issued by the Respondents herein rejecting the representation filed by the Appellant for conversion of her premise, being Plot No. 106, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises in question') from leasehold to freehold.
5. Since both the appeals arise from the same facts, with the consent of all the parties they are being heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
6. The premises in question was leased to M/s Premier Enterprises through its proprietor Smt. Pushplata (hereinafter referred to as "the Lessee") by the Delhi Administration vide Perpetual Lease Deed dated 18.08.1992. It is pertinent to mention here that Clause 13 of the Lease Deed barred the Lessee from using the premises in question for purposes other than running the industry for manufacture of "Surgical Bandages". Further, Clause 5(a) of the Lease Deed specifically restrains the Lessee from selling, transferring, assigning, sub-letting or otherwise parting with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises in question without obtaining previous consent of the Lessor.
7. Material on record discloses that on 18.09.1992, i.e. exactly after one month of getting the allotment, an Agreement to Sell was executed by the Lessee in favour of one Vijay Chhabra and a General Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as 'GPA') was executed by the Lessee on the same day in favour of Naval Chhabra who is the son of Vijay Chhabra. It is pertinent to mention here that no consent was obtained by the Lessee before selling the premises in question.
8. Material on record further discloses that the said Vijay Chhabra sold the premises in question to one Balvinder Sachdeva (Appellant No.2 herein) vide an Agreement to Sale dated 10.06.1994 and a GPA was executed by Naval Chhabra on the same day in favour of Ms. Soma Rani, who is the mother of Balvinder Sachdeva, appointing her as the GPA of the Lessee.
9. It is stated that vide letter dated 28.05.1998, the lease of the premises in question was cancelled by the Office of Commissioner of Industries, Government of NCT of Delhi, on the ground that the Lessee has violated Clause 5(a) of the Lease Deed which stipulated that the Lessee shall not sub-let, sell transfer or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the said premises except with the previous consent in writing of the Lessor. It is further mentioned in the said letter that by using the premises in question for running a restaurant/banquet hall, the Lessee has also violated Clause 13 of the Lease Deed wherein it is mentioned that the premises in question will not be used for purposes other than that of manufacturing/running the industry of surgical bandages. The Lessee was directed to handover the peaceful possession of the premises in question to the Estate Office of the Commissioner of Industries, Delhi within seven days of the receipt of the said letter. Proceedings under the P.P. Act were also initiated by the Respondents against the Lessee.
10. It is stated that on 03.01.1999, Ms.
The court emphasized the importance of upholding lease terms and the inapplicability of conversion schemes to terminated leases.
Under the Scheme for conversion from leasehold to freehold, applications cannot be processed if the lease is cancelled and litigation regarding the property title is pending.
High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 requires proving gross illegality or irregularity for intervention; cancellation of lease upheld based on violations of lease conditions.
Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to reviewing the legality of process rather than re-evaluating facts. Eviction upheld for breaches of lease conditions.
The court emphasized that the DDA's attempt to redefine terms and refuse to execute the lease deed after multiple court directives and payment of charges amounted to an abuse of process of law.
The court ruled that a petitioner cannot claim restoration of a lease after eviction, as the lease determination extinguishes any legal rights to the property.
The failure of the DDA to process the property conversion request due to unsubstantiated claims of fraud and lack of documentation violates the respondent's rights.
There is a right in favour of a co-owner to perfect his title in respect of a property jointly owned by him and therefore, seek conversion from leasehold to freehold and nutation of the property.
Subsequent purchasers have no legal right to claim conversion of property from lease hold to free hold and are liable for eviction if in unauthorized occupation.
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
