DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAM PRAKASH

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 15-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 606 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
RAM PRAKASH 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No.27278 of 2009) 
MARCH 15, 2011 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) 
Deeds and Documents - Leasehold properly - Demand 
of misuser charges from lessee - Legality of - Respondent 
C purchased leasehold properly in an open auction conducted 
by Delhi Development Authority (ODA) and entered into a 
/ease deed with it in respect of such property - From 1983 
onwards, the Petitioner-ODA sent a series of show-cause 
notices to respondent alleging that he was misusing the 
D property for office purposes and that he had also raised 
unauthorized construction on the terrace of the property in 
direct violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed 
- Respondent denied the alleged misuse in part and as 
regard the other part of alleged misuse took the stand that 
E such violations had been done by his tenants without 
obtaining his sanction and consequently he had initiated 
eviction proceedings against them - No action was taken by 
ODA on the basis of the said show-cause notices - However, 
in 2004 when respondent applied to ODA for mutation of the 
F property, DDA demanded arrears of misuse charges from the 
respondent - Respondent filed writ petition - High Court 
quashed the demand - On appeal, held: Respondent took 
prompt steps against the tenants for their transgression and 
one of the tenants has already vacated the premises occupied 
G by him - Further, ODA did not take any follow-up action after 
issuance of the show-cause notices - Instead, after a lapse 
of 25 years the ODA set up a claim on account of misuser 
charges for the entire period - It would be inequitable to allow 
the DOA which had sat over the matter to take advantage of 
H 
606 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAM 
607 
PRAKASH 
its inaction in claiming misuser charges -
Though no 
A 
limitation was prescribed for making a demand of arrear 
charges, the statutory Authority is required to act within a 
reasonable time - What would construe a reasonable time, 
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, but it 
would not be fair to the respondent if such demand is allowed 
B 
to be raised after 25 years, on account of the inaction of the 
DOA. 
The respondent purchased leasehold property in an 
open auction conducted by the Delhi Development 
Authority (DOA). A lease deed in respect of the said plot/ C 
property was executed by the ODA in favour of the 
respondent in 1972. 
According to ODA, contrary to the terms of the lease 
deed, the respondent misused the premises for running 
D 
an office and also raised construction on the terrace 
which was unauthorized and in direct violation of the 
lease deed. Starting from 1983 onwards, the DOA issued 
a number of show-cause notices to the respondent for 
the said alleged misuse. While according to the ODA, a 
portion of the premises was being used for office 
premises, according to the respondent the said portion 
of the premises was being used only to store computers. 
As regards the other part of alleged misuse relating to 
construction raised on the terrace of the premises is 
concerned, it was stated on behalf of the respondent that 
such construction had been raised by the tenants of 
respondent without obtaining his sanction and 
consequently, the respondent had initiated action against 
E 
F 
the said tenants for their eviction therefrom. No decision 
G 
was taken by the DOA against the respondent on basis 
of the said Show-Cause Notices. Ultimately in 2004, when 
respondent.applied to ODA for mutation of the property, 
the ODA issued a notice to respondent for 1,78,85,001/-, 
on account of arrears of misuser charges against which 
H 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 
A the respondent filed a writ petition which was allowed by 
the Single Judge and the demand of misuser charges 
raised by the ODA was quashed. The ODA filed Letters 
Patent Appeal against the said order of the Single Judge 
which was di~missed by the Division Bench. Hence the 
B present Special Leave Petition by the ODA. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Having considered the submissions made 
on behalf of the DOA and by the respondent appearing 
C in-person, and also having considered the reasoning of 
the Single Judge and the Division Bench in repudiating 
the claim of misuser charges by the ODA, this Court is 
unable to convince itself that the decisions rendered by 
the Hig

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