Sujata V.Manohar, J. - (1.) These appeals arise from decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in a group of writ petitions which were filed by the respondent M/s. Express Newspapers Ltd. before the Delhi High Court. These writ petitions challenged the rateable value of the property of the respondent consisting of two buildings on land bearing plot Nos. 9 and 10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
(2.) Under a lease deed dated 17th of March, 1958 executed between the respondent and the Secretary (Local Self-Government) to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi, the respondent acquired leasehold rights in respect of plot bearing Nos. 9 and 10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. The premium paid by the respondent for acquiring leasehold rights of this land was Rs. 96,955/-. A building was constructed on these plots. Construction commenced in 1958 and when it was completed the total cost of construction came to Rs. 31,78,945.47 (exclud-ing the cost of the land). Under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the rateable value of this property was first deter-mined in the year 1958-59. It has been subse-quently revised. There were several disputes as to the revision of the rateable value of this building which have been referred to in the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court in these proceedings. We are, however, not concerned with these disputes pertaining to the old building in the present appeals.
(3.) At the time when the first building was constructed, an area of 2740 sq. yards out of the said plot was required to be kept as an open area because of some drainage pipes passing through that portion. Drainage pipes were subsequently realigned and shifted. Thereafter the respondent commenced construction of a new building on the said portion of the plot, which, for the sake of convenience, can be called the new building, in the year 1978. This construction was completed on 10th April, 1981. On that date, a notice was issued by the respondent to the appellant intimating the appellant that the building had been completed, and permission was sought for use and occupation of the building under Section 346 (2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. This permission was not granted.;