IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in lease cancellation cases and highlights the requirement for specific and unambiguous notice before taking any adverse action against the affected party.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral)

1. These are writ petitions filed by the petitioners seeking relief against the respondent-Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter "DDA"). Since these petitions raise somewhat identical issues, they are being heard and disposed of by a common order.

2. W.P.(C) 15655/2004 has been filed seeking the following substantial prayers:

"i) to direct a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the letter dated 2/1/2002 whereby the lease of the premises bearing No. B-2/228, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi was illegally and arbitrarily cancelled by the respondents;

ii) to direct a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to convert the premises bearing No.B-4/228, Safdurjung Enclave from lease hold to free hold;

iii) to direct the respondents to not to levy any misuse charges on the petitioners as there is no misuse of the premises bearing No.B- 4/228, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi by the petitioners;...."

3. W.P.(C) 143/2012 has been filed seeking to challenge the misuser charges levied by the respondent-DDA. The prayer clause reads as under:

"i) to issue, a Writ, Order, Direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the alleged demand (Annexure P-1) given to petitioner No. 1 on 28.7.2011;

ii) to issue, a Writ, Order, Direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to convert the peremises bearing No. B-4/228, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi from lease hold to free hold for which application was submitted in the year 1996 (Annexure-6);...."

Brief Facts

4. Admittedly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners participated in an auction and being the successful bidders, were allotted plot No. 228, Block No. B-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter "said premises/plot") on lease-hold basis.

5. The possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner on 28.09.1979 and thereafter the respondent-DDA executed a lease deed dated 18.08.1980.

6. The petitioners got the building plans sanctioned and completed the construction in the year 1981. The petitioners constructed basement, ground, first and second floor in the said premises in accordance with the sanction plan. The petitioners are using the entire premises for residential purposes.

7. It is stated that the petitioners are consultants by profession. Petitioner No. 1 also runs a registered Small Scale Industry Unit (hereinafter, "SSI Unit") engaged in the business of supplying electronic equipment to Doordarshan and Prasar Bharti.

8. The petitioners are running their office from UG-5, Som Dutt Chamber 1, 5, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi in the name of M/s Deep Electronics and Deepjot Electronics.

9. It is also stated that the petitioners were using the basement of the said premises for storing some equipment which, according to the petitioners, is permissible under the Building Bye-laws.

10. It is stated that the petitioners in the year 1996 applied for converting the said plot from leasehold to freehold.

11. Vide letter dated 02.01.2002, the petitioners were informed that the lease of the petitioners was cancelled on 26.12.2001 due to the fact that the said property was being used contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease, thereby making it void.

12. It is stated that despite repeated clarifications and requests through various letters, no action was taken by the respondent-DDA to restore the lease or convert the said plot from lease-hold to free-hold.

13. Hence, W.P.(C) 15655/2004 was filed.

14. In W.P.(C) 143/2012, it is stated that pursuant to the filing of W.P.(C) 15655/2004, the respondent vide demand statement dated 28.07.2011 levied Rs. 1,05,31,041/- as misuse charges calculated on the basis of the area of 109.48 sqm.

15. It is this misuse charge which is sought to be quashed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) 143/2012, who state that the area of 109.48 sq. m. as stated in the demand statement is contrary to the record of the respondents.

Submissions

16. It is stated by the learned counse