$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1291/2006, CM APPL. 277/2014, CM APPL. 8609/2014 ARVIND GUPTA & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Tushar Mahajan & Mr. Tanmay S Surana, Advs.

versus LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: MsManikaTripathySCforDDAwith MrAakashMoharadvandMrGautam yadav adv CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the Notice No.F-12(329)/78/Janta/CS/DDA/3427 dated 8.11.2005 demanding exorbitant and illegal misuser charges amounting to Rs. 16,76,328.23 paise (b) Issue a writ,orderor direction including a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the notice bearing No. F.12(329)/JN/78-CS/DDA/3132 dated 15.3.1989 cancelling/determining the lease with respect to suit property No. A-329, Meera Bagh, New Delhi-110049;

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the DDA to follow the Notification issued by the Ministry of Urban Development Affairs and Employment (reference No. J 20011/12/77 L 11 dated 25.6.1996 as adopted by DDA in its Policy under Clause 6 of Circular No.F4(43)96/Coord. Dated 2.8.1996 issued by D.D.A.;

(d) Issue a writ,orderor direction including a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent-Delhi Development Authority to re-determine the amount of misuser charges @1% or in the alternative in accordance with the Circular dated 2.8.1996 (e) Award costs against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners;…..”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioners i.e., Shri Devi Dayal Gupta, became a member of Janta Cooperative House Building Society (“said society”) and was allotted a land admeasuring an area of 400 sq. yards now having Municipal No.A-329 Meera Bagh, New Delhi (“said property”) as a sub-lease and the main lease was created in favour of the said SocietybyDelhiDevelopmentAuthority(“DDA”)i.e.,respondentNo.2.The sub-lease was executed in petitioners’ father’s favourby sub-lease dated

15.03.1978.The sub-lease was for residential purpose only.

3. The petitioners’ father constructed 4 shops and out of 4 shops, 3 shops were rented out.

4. Subsequently, DDA vide notice for cancellation dated 15.03.1989 cancelled the sub-lease on the ground of part use of the said property for non-residential purposes and ordered taking over of the possession of the saidproperty.

5. The petitioners’ father requested the tenants to vacate the premises and upon refusal instituted eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

6. The petitioners’ father passed away on 15.08.1991.

7. The DDA issued a Circular No. F.4(43)/96 Coordn. dated 02.08.1996 (“Circular”), “Sub.:Conversion Of Lease Hold Tensure Of Land Into Free Hold In Delhi-Modification In Scheme”,and Clause No.7 of the said Circular reads as under:-

“7. MISUSE CASES (i) In respect of the misuse of the property or unauthorized construction thereon, if misuse is condonable as per Master Plan provisions/ Zoning regulation or it is within the condonable item as prescribed in the brochure, no additional conversion fees shall be chargeable.

(ii) In cases where misuse is upto 25% or 500 Sq.

ft.Whichever is less, in such cases conversion to free hold will be allowed after charging additional conversion feei.e. three times the conversion fees with reference to apportioned area under misuse.

(iii) Caseswhere misuse is morethan 500nSq ft.or25%ofthe built-up area and it is not condonable, in such cases permission to free hold shall not be granted.”

8. It is the case of the petitioners that they fall within Clause No. 7(ii) of the Circular. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners filed an application for con