MAHARAJ KRISHAN KAPOOR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-426
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 07,2007

MAHARAJ KRISHAN KAPOOR Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash a communication dated 3.3.2006 sent to him by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) calling upon him to make a payment of Rs. 36,23,538 constituting the permission fee for the running of a branch of the State Bank of India (SBI), Respondent No.2 herein (SBI) in the premises at E-27, Saket, New Delhi ("the premises in question") during the period 1.4.1990 to 6.5.1999. The payment of the permission fee was demanded pursuant to an application made by the Petitioner to the DDA on 23.12.1999 for conversion of the premises in question from leasehold to freehold. The alternative prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the Respondent No.2 SBI to deposit the said amount with the DDA, for a mandamus to the DDA to allow the Petitioner's application dated 23.12.1999 seeking conversion of the premises in question from leasehold to freehold and execute the necessary conveyance deed in favour of the Petitioner.
(2.) The Petitioner is the holder of a perpetual lease in respect of the premises in question under a lease deed dated 21.4.1977 executed by the DDA acting on behalf of the President of India. Although the permissible user of a premises under the said perpetual lease deed was residential, an exception was envisaged under the proviso to Clause 13 whereby the petitioner could apply to the DDA for use of the premises for a purpose other than a private dwelling subject to the payment of additional premium and additional rent as the DDA in its discretion would determine.
(3.) After obtaining licence from the Reserve Bank of India, the SBI opened several of its branches in Delhi. It approached the Petitioner for opening its branch in the premises in question. The SBI, in terms of the proviso to Clause 13 of the perpetual lease deed, applied to the DDA on 5.6.1985 for permission to run its branch in the premises in question. A lease deed was entered into on 13.6.1985 by the Petitioner (described in the lease deed as lessor) and the SBI (described in the lease deed as lessee). Clause II (c) required the Petitioner to pay the composition fee (otherwise called permission fee) to the DDA for the non-conforming use of the premises in question by the SBI. The lease was for a period of 5 years beginning 23.3.1985. The monthly rent was Rs. 13,580 which included "DDA composition fee of Rs. 3880/- per month.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.