Back
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Premier Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Office of The Commissioner of Inductries
And – Respondent
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 appea
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
