Om Prakasb, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the letter dated 31-10-1987 demanding a sum of Rs. 89,920.30 being 25% of the difference between the premium paid and the market value of the shop room at the time of sale as envisaged by condition 5 (ii) of the lease-deed as prescribed by the New Okhla INdustrial Development Authority (for short 'the NOIDA').
(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner was granted lease of shop room no. 3, Block D Section 18 by the NOIDA, condition no 5 of the lease- deed is as follows "5 (i) THE lease may sublet the shop room but he will not be entitled to transfer the lease hold rights in the shop room without prior permission of the Chief Executive Officer of the Lessor and subject to such conditions as 'Chief Executive Officer' may impose. (ii) In the case of transfer of leasehold rights in the shop room by the lessee 25% of the difference between the premium paid and the market value of the shop room at the time of the sale shall be paid by the lessee of lessor. THE decision of the Chief Executive Officer in respect of Market value shall be final, conclusive and binding on the lessee. Explanation : THE expression Market value in the para means the premium that may be obtained the event of auction of the shop room on the date of such transfer." On 26th August, 1986, the petitioner moved an application to the Chief Executive Officer NOIDA seeking his permission for the transfer of the aforesaid shop soom in favour of one Sri R. P. Sharma, which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. As the said application was not accompanied with a draft of Rs. 100/- required as per condition of the lease-deed, the petitioner obtained a draft of Rs. 100/.- and made another application on 28-8-1986 to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, such application and the draft are Annexures "2" and "3" respectively to the petition. THE application (Annexure "2") was not disposed of by the respondents for quite sometime and then the petitioner sent a reminder on 21-7-1987 which is Annexure "5" to the writ petition. By that time the validity period of the draft dated 28th August. 1986, had expired and the same was got re-validated by the petitioner, which is Annexure "6" to the writ petition. By letter dated 18th September, 1987, the respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 89,920.30 being 25 per cent difference of the premium and the market value of the shop on the date of sale. THE demand was reiterated in letter dated 31-10-1987 (Annexure "7" to the writ petition) by NOIDA and it is this letter which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner. The averment of the petitioner is that the respondent has not disclosed the basis and the date with reference to which market value has been calculated by the respondent in view of condition 5 (ii) of the lease-deed. In paragraph 20 of the petition, it is averred that the impugned demand is illegal and arbitrary. In paragraph 21 of the petition, the petitioner contends that the market value of the shop should have been determined with reference to the date of her application made to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, for seeking permission to make transfer. The contention of the petitioner is that a valid application with a draft of Rs 100/- had been made on 28-8-1986 and that the respondent raised the demand on 18-9-1987, i.e. after more than a year, and such delay is wholly ascribed to the respondent What is contended is that if the market value were determined immediately after receipt of the petitioner's application, then the demand would have been much less than that raised beyond a year. It is also contended in paragraph 25 by the petitioner that the market value of similar property on the date of application was Rs. 5,500/- per square meter, but as per the demand raised by the respondents, the market value comes to Rs. 13,000/- per square meter. According to the petitioner, the increase in the market value is due to delay caused by the respondent in determining the market value, for raising the demand of difference within the meaning of condition 5 (ii) of the lease-deed.
(3.) THE respondent in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit contended that the market value was determined strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease-deed and that the decision of the Chief Executive Officer is final in this regard. The controversy involved in this writ petition revolves round the interpretation of the phrase : "The market value of the shop room at the time of sale" occurring in condition 5 (ii) of the lease-deed as reproduced;