- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This petition has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to ex ecute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the house in which he is a tenant without charging premium and lease rent according to the current market value of the land but on no profit no loss principle according to the cost of the acquisition of land.
(2.) THE case set up in the writ petition is that the petitioner came to India after partition. A Refugee Colony consisting of 120 residential quarters was constructed by Nagar Mahapalika, Agra (respondent No. 2) from a grant of rupees seven lakhs given by the Central Government to the U. P. Government upon the land which was acquired by the U. P. Government under U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948. THE Colony was con structed in 1949 and the quarters were allotted to the refugees on a rent Rs. 20/-per month with a further condition that if the rent is paid by 7th of the month, a rebate of 10% would be granted. THE quarter has been constructed on 99 Sq. yards of land and consists of two rooms, two verandahs, kitchen, store, latrine and bath-room. At the time of laying founda tion stone as well as inauguration of the Colony, it was stated by the Chief Minister that the quarters were intended to be sold to the refugees but as they were not in a position to pay the price thereof, they were being inducted as tenants and ultimately they will be sold to them on the basis of no profit no loss principle after adjustment of the rent already paid. According to the petitioner the price of each quarter came to Rs. 3. 941/- at the time of its construc tion. THE Nagar Mahapalika sent a letter dated 2-9-1985 to the President of the Society of the occupants of the quarters that premium for the plot was Rs. 33, 333-33 and the annual lease rent was Rs. 833. 33. According to the petitioner the demand made by Nagar Mahapalika for executing sale deed in exorbitant and is not in accordance with the assurance given at the time when the petitioner was inducted as tenant that the quarter would be sold on no profit no loss basis. THE petitioner con tends that the respondents are estopped on the principle of promissory estoppel to demand any higher price and they are bound to execute a sale deed of the quarter in his favour at the price of its construction namely Rs. 3, 941. Estoppe is a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. This principle was given a new dimension by Bhagwati, J. in Moti Lal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP, AIR 1979 SC 621, wherein, after considering earlier decisions of the Apex Court and of U. K. and U. S. A. , it was held as follows: ". . . . . The true principle of promissory es toppel seems to be that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relation ship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the parties or not. The doctrine of promissory estoppel need not be inhibited by the same limitation as estoppel in the strict sense of the term. It is an equitable principle evolved by the courts for doing justice and there is no reason why it should be given only a limited application by way of defence. " The aforesaid view was departed from in certain respects in Jitram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1285; Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 142 and Puorami Oil Mills v. State, AIR 1987 SC 590. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Products, AIR 1996 SC 149, it was ob served that the rule of promissory estoppel being equitable doctrine has to be moulded to suit a particular situation and that it is not a hard and fast rule but an elastic one, the object of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend equitable treatment to them. The facts pleaded by the petitioner show that he is paying rent to Nagar Mahapalika, Agra who is the owner of the quarter. There is no document on record to show that Nagar Mahapalika gave any promise to the petitioner that the quarter would be sold to him on the same price on which it was constructed in the year 1948. There is a vague assertion that at the time of laying foundation stone as well as at the time of inauguration of the Colony the then Chief Minister had stated that the quarters would be sold to the refugees at no profit no loss basis and that the said statement was based upon a decision taken by the respondents under the direction of the Central Government. No document in support of the aforesaid allegation that a decision had been taken by the respon dents to sell the quarters to the refugees at no profit no loss basis has been filed. There is a general allegation that the President of District Congress Committee wrote a letter on 11-9-1957 supporting the demand of the refugees ; that the Private Secretary to the Chief Minister forwarded appeal of the refugees to the Government of U. P. for redressal on 3-7-1958 and that the Speaker of Lok Sabha also wrote a letter on 23-8-1958 to the Chief Minister of U. P. supporting the case of the refugees. Copies of these letters have not been placed on record. Even assuming that such letters were written, they cannot be said to be any promise or assurance on the part of the respondents specially that of Nagar Mahapalika to sell the quarter to the petitioner at the cost price.
(3.) SHRI Sushil Harkauli, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on a letter dated 5- 11-1959 (Annexure-1) sent by the Secretary to the Government, wherein it is mentioned that the Municipal Board is willing to transfer the quarters by outright sale to the existing allottees on payment of its total costs in cash less the amount of rent realised so far. The letter was sent to SHRI J. A. Agwani, Secretary of Malviya Kunj Prem Sabha (Society of tenants of the quarters) and he was advised to contact the Administrator of the Municipal Board, Agra. Even as suming this document to be correct, it is not a promise on the part of Nagar Mahapalika who is the owner of the quarter and, therefore, it cannot create any estoppel against it. That apart, it does not mention that the price on which the quarter would be sold would be same on which it was constructed in 1948. Learned Counsel has also submitted that resolu tion No. 587 was passed by respondent No. 2 on 7-3-1951 wherein it was decided to transfer the ownership of the quarters to the tenants, against hire purchase agree ment in easy instalments, less the rent paid, on no profit no loss basis. A copy of the resolution has not been placed on record and, therefore, it is not possible to ascertain the precise terms thereof. The quarters were constructed in 1949 and in March, 1951 tre then Municipal Board may have passed a resolution to transfer ownership to the refugees who were the tenants on no profit no loss basis but the said resolution cannot form the basis of claim after such a long period as it will be highly unjust to compel respondent No. 2 to execute sale deed now for the same price. It is common knowledge that there has been a meteric rise in the price of urban properties and the price structure of 1949-51 has no relevance at all at the present moment. It may be pointed out that the facts placed on record do not show that acting on the basis of alleged representation of sale of quarter at the cost price the petitioner has altered his position to his detriment. The petitioner is continuing in occupation of the quarter on very nominal rent of Rs. 18/- per month for which no residential building can be available in a city like Agra. No material has been placed on record which may show that the some comparable or better property was avail able for sale to the petitioner but he did not purchase the same only on account of the alleged assurance of respondent No. 2.;