DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus M/S. ANANT RAJ AGENCIES PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 12-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] l S.C.R. 787 
'DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
M/S. ANANT RAJ AGENCIES PVT. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3 783 of2016) 
A 
APRIL 12, 2016 
B 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Delhi Development Act, 1957 - ss. 21 (1), 22 - Grant of lease 
in favo11r of original lessee for twenty years - Extension allowed 
for a further period of twenty years at option of lessee - Original 
C 
lessee approached DDA for renewal of lease - Breach of terms and 
conditions of lease by lessee - Issuance of notice dated 16.02.1968 
to lessee - Four years later termination of lease - Suit for perpetual 
injunction by original lessee seeking restraining order against DDA 
- Suit decreed infavour of original lessee - First appeal by DDA 
dismissed - During pendency of second appeal by DDA, said 
D 
property purchased by the respondent vide sale deed in view of 
compromise decree passed by the High Court - Substitution of 
respondent in place of the original lessee - Payment of charges for 
conversion from leasehold to freehold by respondent - Dismissal of 
second appeal by High Court holding that acceptance of rent by 
DDA pursuant to a demand made by it amounts to a renewal of E 
lease in respect of the property - On appeal, held: Property is a 
Public Premises in terms of s.2(e)(3)(ii) of the 1971 Act - There 
cannot be an automatic renewal of lease in favour of the original 
lessee once it stands terminated by efflux of time and also by issuing 
notice terminating the lease - Merely accepting the amount towards 
f 
the rent by DDA after expiry of the lease period would not be 
construed as renewal of lease for another period of 20 years -
Also the original lessee failed to remedy the breaches -In the absence 
~ 
of renewal of lease, status of the original lessee, in relation to the 
property was that of an unauthorised occupant in terms of s. 2(g) 
of the 1971 Act- Person having no right, title or interest in the ·a 
property cannot transfer the same by ·way of sale deed - Sale of the 
property by the original lessee in favour of the respondent was not 
a valid assignment of his right in respect of the same, thus, not 
binding on the DDA - Deposition of conversion charges of the said 
property from lease hold to free hold right to DDA also not of any 
H 
787 
788 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME CQl,,<. l REPORTS 
[20 l 6] l S.CR. 
help to respondent - Thus, the order passed by the High Court set 
aside - DDA to take the possession of the property without resorting 
to eviction proceedings - DDA entitled for the recovery of damages 
from both, the original lessee or his legal heirs and the respondent 
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 
- ss. 2(e){3){ii), 2(g) - Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of 
Developed Nazu/ Land) Rules, 1981 - r. 43. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The concurrent findings recorded by the courts 
below declaring the termination notice dated 01.09.1972, 
terminating the lease of the property in qnestion granted in favour 
of the original lessee, served by the DDA to the original lessee, 
as illegal, arbitrary and without jnrisdiction on the erroneous 
assumption of the non-existent fact that there has been a renewal 
of the lease for the reason that the original lessee applied for the 
renewal of the lease within time as stipulated in the clause IIl(b) 
of the lease deed and has been paying rent for the property in 
question to the office of the DDA. The said conclusion of the 
courts below is erroneous in law as it is contrary to the Clause 
Ill (b) of the lease deed and also Sections 21(1) and 22 of the 
Delhi Development Act, 1957 read with Rule 43 of the Delhi 
Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) 
Rules, 1981. [Para 24] [799-B-D] 
1.2 The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable in 
respect of the public premises. The property in question is public 
premises by virtue of Section 2(e)(3)(ii) of the Public Premises 
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. In the instant 
case, as per clause III(b) of the lease deed and Sections 21 and 
22 of the DD Act read with Rule 43 of the Nazul Land Rules and 
inJhe light of *Slianti Prasad Devi, **Sarup Singli Gupta and 
*** Aslioka Marketing Ltd. cases, there cannot be an automatic 
renewal of lease in favour of the original lessee once it stands 
terminated by efflux of time and also by issuing notice terminating 
the lease. Merely accepting the amount towards the rent by the 
office o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.