DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAM PRAKASH

                         [2011) 5 S.C.R. 606


A               DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                                   v.
                         RAM PRAKASH
           (Special Leave Petition (C) No.27278 of 2009)
                          MARCH 15, 2011
B
         [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           E
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            F
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
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 High Court, both by the Single Judge as also the
D   Division Bench, require any interference in these
    proceedings. The materials on record show that the
    respondent took prompt steps against the tenants for
    their transgression. During arguments it was indicated
    that, in fact, one of the tenants had already vacated the
E   portion of the premises occupied by him. It is also very
    clear that after issuing the Show-Cause Notices, the
    petitioner-DOA did not take any follow"up action
    thereupon. Instead, after a lapse of 25 years, the petitioner
    set up a claim on account of charges for the entire period.
F   It would be inequitable to allow the petitioner which had
    sat over the matter to take advantage of its inaction in
    claiming misuser charges. [Para 21] [616-C-F]

       1.2. Even as to the contention raised on behalf of the
  petitioner-DOA that there was no limitation prescribed for
G making a demand of arrear charges, the Division Bench
  observed that even where no period of limitation is
  indicated, 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
H case, but it would not be fair to the respondent if such
     DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR.ITY v. RAM                      609
                  PRAKASH
demand is allowed to be raised after 25 years, on account             A
of the inaction of the petitioner-DOA. [Para 22] [616-G-H;
617~A-D]      .                              .

     State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative
MilkProducers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363: 2007 (11) SCR             B
14, referred to.

                      Case Law Reference:

    2007 (11 ) SCR 14           referred to ·          Para 22

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.                    C
27278 of 2009.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 02.05.2008 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 22 of 2008.
                                                                      D
     A. Sharan, Vishnu 8. Saharya (for Saharya & Co.) for the
Petitioner.

    Ram Prakash Respondent-In-Person.

    THe Judgment of the Court was delivered by                        E
    ALTAMAS KABIR, J, 1..The Delhi Development Authority,
hereinafter, referred to as "DOA" is the petitioner in this Special
Leave Petition, which is directed against the judgment and
order dated 2.5.2008 passed by the Delhi High Court in LP.A.          F
No.22 of 2008.

     2. The respondent herein, along with his mother and wife,
purchased a property in No.7, Community Center, East of
Kailash, New Delhi, in an open auction conducted by the DOA
on 10.8.1969. Possession of the plot was made over to the G
purchasers on 5th March, 1972, and a lease deed in respect
of the said plot was executed on 5th April, 1972. In terms of
the Lease Deed, the auction purchasers were required to
construct the building upon the demised plot within.two years
from the date of delivery of possession.                       H
    610      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2011] 5 S.C.R.


A         3. It appears that on a routine inspection by the petitioner's
    staff on 8th August, 1983, it was noticed that the respondent
    was using the basement of the building for office purposes
    which was in contravention of the prescribed usage. A Show-
    Cause Notice was issued on the same day calling upon the
B   respondent to Show-Cause within 10 days as to why action for
    cancellation of lease should not be taken for violation of clause
    11(13) of the Lease Deed. The respondent replied to the said
    Show-Cause Notice on 10th August, 1983, denying misuse of
    the property. No further action was taken on the said Show-
e   Cause Notice till seven years later when on 28th June, 1990,
    another Show-Cause Notice was issued stating as to why the
    lease should not be determined for violation of clause 11(13) of
    the Lease Deed on the ground that the basement of the building
    was being misused as an office for Frooti/Atash Industry,
D   instead of storage, and the mezzanine floor was being used
    for the office ofM/s Ferrow Alloys Forging & M/s Green Land,
    instead of storage.

        4. In response to the second Show-Cause Notice the
    respondent replied stating that the portion in question had been
E   leased to the above-named companies for storage purposes
    and their failure to abide by the terms of the lease has been
    brought to the notice of the tenants for taking appropriate steps.

         5. Since the reply was not found to be satisfactory, further
F   Show-Cause Notices were issued to the respondent on
    3.9.1990 and 11.12.1990 in relation to the violation of the
    provisions of the Lease Deed and to remove the breaches
    which had been pointed out, in default whereof the lease would
    be determined. The respondents replied to the Show-Cause
G   Notice dated 3.9.1990 on 5.11.1990 stating that the tenant was
    using the basement for storage of Frooti juices and was not
    operating any office therefrom. It was also mentioned that the
    tenant in the mezzanine floor had not yet replied to the notice
    which had been issued to him.

H
     DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAM                   611
         PRAKASH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
      6. However, on the basis of another inspection of the A
premises conducted in December, 19.90, where it was noticed
that both the floors were still being misused, notices were
issued for joint inspection which was fixed for 18.2.1991,
12.3.1991 and 22.4.1991. However, the respondents did not
join the inspection and ultimately an inspection was carried out B
on 24.4.1991 and another Show-Cause Notice was issued to
the respondents on 8.5.1991. In response to the said Show-
Cause Notice the respondents wrote back on 21.5.1991 that
they have no control over the tenants, except to inform them of
their violations. Ultimately, the respondents in its letter dated c
9.7.1991 stated that the mezzanine floor was being used as
offices. In reply to the said letter written on behalf of the
respondent the petitioner informed the respondent that as per
architectural design the mezzanine floor could be used only for.
storage and unless the misuse was stopped the lease would
                                                                  0
have to be determined. In response on 13.11.1991 the
respondent once again asserted that the mezzanine floor in the
Community Centre was not being misused.

     7. Thereafter, there was a series of correspondence
exchanged on the same subject. In the meanwhile, Smt. Kamla      E
Ahluwalia, the wife of the respondent, died on 23.4.1994, as
did Smt. Saraswati Devi on 6.8.1994.

     8. On 20.5.2004 the respondent applied to the DDA for
mutation of the property in favour of the legal heirs of the F
deceased co-auction purchasers. In response thereto the
respondents were asked by a letter dated 20.5.2004 to pay
misuser charges and were called upon to clear the dues in
respect thereof. Aggrieved by the said demand notice the
respondents filed a Writ Petition, being W.P.No. 8464 of 2006, G
in the High Court for quashing the demand of misuser charges
amounting to Rs. 1,78,85,001/-. The same was allowed by the
High Court on 17 .8.2007 and the demand of misuser charges
raised by the DOA, by its letter dated 20.5.2004, was quashed.

    9. The DDA filed Letters Patent Appeal, being LPA No.22      H
    612      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A   of 2008 on 12.12.2007, challenging the order of the learned
    Single Judge dated 17.8.2007, which was dismissed on
    2.5.2008.

          10. It is against the said order of dismissal of the LPA by
    the Delhi High Court that this Special Leave Petition has been
8
    filed by the DOA.

          11. Appearing for the ODA, Mr. A. Sharan, learned Senior
    Advocate, submitted that, although, under the terms of the lease
    deed, the respondent was allowed to use the premises for
C   commercial purposes, he had misused the same and that the
    premises was being used for running an office. Furthermore,
    a construction had been raised on the terrace which was
    unauthorized and in direct .violation of the lease agreement. It
    was submitted that the misuser of the property came to the
D   notice of the DOA during inspection, as slich misuser of the
    demised premises had been carried on without notice to and
    the leave of the ODA. Mr. Sharan also submitted that as many
    as 14 Show-Cause Notices had to be issued t6 the respondent
    on account of such misuser. Since the respondent failed to
E   comply with the requisitions contained in the said notices, the
    DOA issued a notice for Rs. 1,78,85,001/-, on account of
    misuser charges against which the respondent filed a writ
    petition, being W.P.(C)No.8464 of 2006, which was allowed by
    the learned Single Judge and the demand of misuser charges
F   raised by the petitioner by its letter dated 20th May, 2004, was
    quashed.

        · 12. The ODA filed Letters Patent Appeal No.22 of 2008
    against the said order of the learned Single Judge before the
    Division Bench which dismissed the same on the ground that
G   while according to the petitioner-Authority, 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. There was no office as such, but a
    small establishment was maintained by the tenant for
H   accounting purposes of the goods brought to the premises for
      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAM                    613
          PRAKASH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
storage purposes only. It was not as if a regular office was        A
being run from the said premises.

     13. As far as 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    B
had been raised by the tenant without obtaining the sanction
of the lessee and consequently, the respondent had initiated
action against the said tenants for their eviction therefrom.

      14. What also weighed with the Judge is the fact that the
first Show-Cause Notice issued to the petitioner was in regard C
to alleged misuse of the basement from 30th July, 1983, the
mezzanine floor from 20th June, 1990, and the terrace from 7th
September, 1992, till 13th January, 2003. However, although,
the first Show-Cause Notice was issued fo the respondent on
8th August, 1983, regarding misuse of the basement and a D
reply was also submitted by the respondent on 10th August, ·
1983, no decision was taken by the ODA on the said Show-
Cause Notice. On the other hand, in June 1990, upon an
alleged inspection by the ODA, another Show-Cause Notice
was issued to the respondent on 28th June, 1990, only in E
respect of the alleged misuse of the basement arid the
mezzanine floor. Despite a reply being sent, again no action
was taken by the DOA except for issuing Final Notices to the
respondent on 3rd September, 1990 and 11th December,
1990, requiring him to stop violation of the conditions of the F
lease deed, failing which it would be terminated. The
respondent sent a reply to the first Final Notice on 5th
November, 1990, but again no decision was taken on any of
the two Final Notices which had been sent to the respondent.
Periodical inspection was thereafter carried out, but no action G
was at all taken by the ODA and its authorities against the
respondent for alleged misuse of the premises in question.

    15. Ultimately, on a question of limitation being raised in
respect of the demand of misuser charges, the Division Bench
observed that where no period of limitation is prescribed, action   H
    614       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A   has to be taken by the authorities within a reasonable. period
    of time, but by no stretch of imagination, could it be said that
    after a lapse of almost 25 years that the ODA had not acted
    arbitrarily or at least unfairly in so far as the respondent is
    concerned. In addition, the respondent was never informed by
B   the DOA that he was required to pay any misuser charges. On
    the basis of such reasoning, the Division Bench of the High
    Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the learned
    Single Judge.

          16. Mr. Sharan submitted that both the learned Single
C   Judge and the Division Bench had misconstrued the principles
    relating to limitation in holding that the DOA had acted arbitrarily
    and unfairly in so far as the respondent was concerned, and,
    in any event, the respondent was never informed by the ODA
    that he was required to pay misuse charges.
D
         17. Mr. Sharan urged that both the Single Judge and the
    Division Bench of the High Court failed to consider the core
    issue relating to the user of the premises in keeping with
    paragraph 13 of the lease deed executed by the DOA in favour
E   of the respondent on 5th April, 1972. In this regard Mr. Sharan
    referred to paragraph 13 of the lease deed which reads as
    follows:

         "13) The lessee shall not without the written consent of the
         lessor carry on or permit to be carried on, on the plot or in
F        any building thereon any trade or business of manufacture
         which in opinion of the lessor may be noisy, noxious or
         offensive or the same or permit the same to be used for
         any purpose other than those specified or do or suffer to
         be done therein any act or thing whatsoever which in the
G        opinion of the lessor may be a nuisance annoyance or
       · disturbance to the lessor or the person living in the
         neighbourhood.

          Provided that, if the lessee is desirous of using the said
H         plot or ttie building thereon for a purpose other than those
     DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAM                   615
         PRAKASH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
    specified the lessor may allow such Change or user on 'such   A
    terms and conditions. including payment of additional
    premium and additional rent, as the lessor may in his
    absolute discretion determine."

     18. Mr. Sharan submitted that having regard to the above,    B
the respondent was not entitled to use the demised premises
in a manner which was; contrary to paragraph 13 of the lease
deed. It was contended that the respondent was carrying on a
business in the demised premises in respect whereof there was
no feed back whatsoever from the lessee. Mr. Sharan urged
that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th August,     C
2007, could not be sustained and the same was liable to be
set aside, along with the order of the Division Bench impugned
in the Special Leave Petition.

      19. Appearing in person, the respondent, on the other hand, D
submitted that after the Show-Cause Notices were issued no
action whatsoever was taken on the basis thereof and all of a
sudden the exorbitant misuser charges, amounting to Rs.
1,78,85,001/- was demanded from him. Professor Ram
Prakash suemitted that from 1983, nothing had been done by E
the DOA on the basis of the Show-Cause Notices which had
been issued, to which the respondent had promptly replied
stating that the construction on the terrace had been effected
by the tenants and not by him and in respect whereof proper
proceedings had been initiated for their eviction from the F
premises. The respondent submitted that it is only under severe
compulsion, that he had to move the Writ Court for relief in
relation to the demand of misuser charges of Rs. 1,78,85,001/
-. The respondent submitted that for the last 25 years he had
been made to face various problems and uncertainties, but that
it was entirely unjustified on the part of the DOA to raise the G
claim of alleged misuser charges of Rs. 1, 78,85,001 /-. The
respondent submitted that after a long period of'25 years, a
quietus was required to be given to the ,matter. ,

    20. The respondent submitted that after issuance of Show-     H
    616      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A   Cause Notices, the DDA should have taken further steps in the
    matter within a reasonable time and that too relating to misuser
    chargers where he was not at fault. The respondent submitted
    that he had taken prompt steps not only to reply to the Show-
    Cause Notices issued to him, but to initiate action against the
B   tenants who had used the property in a manner which was
    different from the purpose for which the property had been let
    out. The respondent submitted that this was a case where both
    the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench decided the
    matter in the crucible of events peculiar to the facts of this case,
c   having particular regard to the length of the period for which the
    misuser charges had been demanded.

          21. Having considered the submissions made on behalf
    of the DDA and by the respondent appearing in-person, and
    also having considered the reasoning of the learned Single
D   Judge· and the Division Bench in repudiating the claim of
    misuser charges by the DOA, we are unable to convince
    ourselves that the decisions rendered by the High Court, both
    by the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench, require
    any interference in these proceedings. The materials on record
E   will show that the respondent took prompt steps against the
    tenants for their transgression. During arguments it was
    indicated that, in fact, one of the tenants had already vacated
    the portion of the premises occupied by him. It is also very clear
    that after issuing the Show-Cause Notices, the petitioner did
F   not take any follow-up action thereupon. Instead, after a lapse
    of 25 years, the petitioner set up a claim on account of charges
    for the entire period. It would be inequitable to allow the
    petitioner which had sat over the matter to take advantage of
    its inaction in claiming misuser charges.
G
          22. Even as to the contention raised on behalf of the
    petitioner that there was no limitation prescribed for making a
    demand of arrear charges, the Division Bench relying on the
    decision of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Bhatinda
H   District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. ((2007) 11
     DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAM                     617
         PRAKASH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
sec 363), observed that even where no period of limitation is      A
indicated, the statutory Authority is required to act within a
reasonable time. In our view, 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 to be raised after 25 years, on account of the inaction    B
of the petitioner.

     23. We do not, therefore, find any reason to interfere with
the judgment either of the learned Single Judge or of the
Division Bench of the High Court and the Special Leave             C
Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

    24. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

B.B.B.                     Special Leave Petition dismissed.