DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus S.G.G. TOWERS (P) LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 07-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 779 : 2025 INSC 337
Delhi Development Authority 
v. 
S.G.G. Towers (P) Ltd. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1972 of 2011)
07 March 2025
[Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant-DDA executed an agreement to lease in respect of a plot 
in favour of M/s Mehta Constructions, which executed a registered 
sale deed cum Assignment in favour of second respondent. The 
second respondent went into liquidation, and the plot was sold 
to first respondent in the auction in liquidation proceedings. The 
auction sale was confirmed by a Single Judge and Division Bench 
of the High Court, hence, the present appeal by DDA.
Headnotes†
Auction – Agreement to lease executed by Appellant in respect 
of a plot in favour of M/s Mehta Constructions – However, lease 
in terms of such agreement was never executed – Subsequent 
sale deed executed by M/s Mehta Constructions in favour of 
second respondent – Second respondent went into liquidation, 
and the plot was sold to first respondent in the auction in 
liquidation proceedings on “as it is basis” – Whether first 
respondent entitled to any right in respect of the plot:
Held: It is an accepted position that the lease was never executed 
by the appellant in favour of M/s Mehta Constructions, and no rights, 
title, and interest were created in favour of M/s Mehta Constructions 
in respect of the said plot – Therefore, at the highest, the second 
respondent, by virtue of the sale deed dated 15th February 1985, 
executed by M/s Mehta Constructions, can claim benefits under 
the lease agreement, provided in law, the second respondent is 
entitled to it in accordance with law – As far as auction conducted 
in liquidation proceedings of the second respondent is concerned, 
the notice of proclamation itself records that the sale of the said plot 
was on “as it is basis” – Moreover, the order dated 19th October 
* Author
780
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2001 of the Company Judge makes sale absolute in favour of 
the first respondent – Therefore, the first respondent will get only 
those rights which M/s Mehta Constructions had under the lease 
agreement, provided the rights can be claimed at this stage – The 
first respondent is not entitled to either ownership or leasehold 
rights in respect of the said plot – The first respondent cannot 
claim to be a lessee as the lease in terms of the lease agreement 
was never executed – At the same time, if according to the case 
of the appellant, M/s Mehta Constructions had committed breach 
of the lease agreement, notwithstanding the impugned orders, it 
will be always open for the appellant to adopt appropriate remedy 
for recovery of possession and/or recovery of unearned income 
against the first respondent – If the first respondent desires to get 
the transaction regularised, it is for the first respondent to apply to 
the appellant to accept unearned income or any other amount – If 
such a request is made, the appellant will consider the same in 
accordance with the law. [Paras 11, 12, 14, 15]
Case Law Cited
Delhi Development Authority v. Vijaya C. Gurshaney & Anr. [2003] 
Supp. 2 SCR 1010 : (2003) 7 SCC 301; Food Corporation of India 
& Ors. v. Babulal Agrawal [2004] 1 SCR 129 : (2004) 2 SCC 712; 
Delhi Development Authority v. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 
1 SCR 787 : (2016) 11 SCC 406; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. 
Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. [2016] 1 SCR 
216 : (2016) 4 SCC 469; Delhi Development Authority v. Nalwa 
Sons Investment Ltd. & Anr. [2019] 6 SCR 783 : (2020) 17 SCC 
782 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Agreement to Lease; Leasehold Rights; Lease Deed; Delhi 
Development Authority; Sale Deed; Auction; Liquidation 
Proceedings; Absolute Sale; As it is basis; Ownership; Lessee; 
Unearned Income; Creditors.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1972 of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2010 of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CA No. 5 of 2002
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 
781
Delhi Development Authority v. S.G.G. Towers (P) Ltd. & Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv., Nitin Mishra, Ms. Mitali Gupta, Ishaan 
Sharma.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv., Anand Sukumar, S. Sukumaran, Bhupesh 
Kumar Pathak, Kshitis Mittal, Ms. Ruche A, Dhruv Kapur, Baldev, 
Vidit Agarwal, Ms. Ritika Sethi, Satish Kumar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FA

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