Delhi District Court
Ustad Hafiz Ali Khan Memorial Society ... vs Delhi Development Authority on 18 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 58687-2016
CNR No. DLND01-009752-2016
Ustad Hafiz Ali Khan Memorial Society (Regd.)
A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act
Through its President,
Sh. Anil Sarin
S/o. Sh. Anant Ram Sarin
B-26, Qutab Institutional Area,
Katvaria Sarai, New Delhi
.....Plaintiff
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan,
INA, New Delhi
.....Defendant
Date of institution : 12.01.2006
Arguments heard on : 21.11.2025
Clarifications heard on : 09.12.2025
Date of judgment : 18.12.2025
Appearance:
Sh. Rakesh Kumar Lakra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Ms. Promila Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the defendant/DDA.
Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 1 of 30
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff society seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction on the pleas that plaintiff is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act which has been formed for the purpose of imparting training and for providing knowledge and skill of rich heritage of classical as well as vocal music to the students of India and abroad. The plaintiff society applied to Delhi Development Authority/defendant for allotment of land for the purposes of carrying out its activities and the said application was duly recommended by the Ministry vide letter dated 12.09.1979. As such, deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant on 28.08.1980 which was duly registered. The construction was raised over the plot after getting the plans sanctioned. The plaintiff for the purposes of arranging funds for furthering its object and to pay off the loans, decided to let out 25% of the property i.e. i.e. 7265 sq.ft. (against total area of 29063 sq.ft.) to M/s. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd. The defendant permitted subletting of property upto 25% subject to making payment of 10% of the rent/service charge/licence fee and notice in this regard was published in the newspapers. The defendant in certain cases had even allowed subletting to the extent of 68% to the societies in the institutional area.
2. The plaintiff let out the property to M/s. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd., from 01.12.2001 and also moved an application for getting such permission vide application dated 28.06.2002 by depositing Rs.8,01,867/- towards subletting charges with defendant/DDA till Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 2 of 30 30.06.2006. The plaintiff received a show cause notice dated 28.07.2005 from the defendant alleging subletting of more than 90% area of the property, contrary to the terms of the lease and called upon the plaintiff to explain as to why the allotment be not cancelled. The plaintiff replied to the said show cause notice on 29.08.2005 asserting that they only let- out portion of the property i.e. 7265 sq.ft. and the allegation of subletting of more than 90% portion is wrong and contrary to factual position. The defendant however without giving an opportunity, vide notice dated 16.12.2005, intimated that allotment and lease have been determined and directed the plaintiff to hand over the possession on 22.12.2005.
3. It is asserted that the termination order is illegal and contrary as the plaintiff had not sublet any portion exceeding 25% as also the area is being used for the purposes of the institution. The official of the defendant came on 22.12.2005 and wanted the plaintiff to hand over the possession but on the objection of the plaintiff, he left with the threat that they will came with full force and take possession.
4. The plaintiff met various officials of the defendant to seek withdrawal of the termination notice with the assertion that possession cannot be forcibly taken but the officials of defendant refused to listen and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the cancellation letter dated 16.12.2005, is absolutely illegal, void, unjust and improper and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 3 of 305. In view of above facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for declaration thereby declaring that cancellation of allotment of land and lease deed dated 22.08.1980 as communicated in respect of plot no.B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi vide letter dated 16.12.2005 is illegal and not binding, and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff in respect of plot No. B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi, without following due process of law and be restrained from taking any action under Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act 1971.
6. The defendant/Delhi Development Authority contested the case by filing written statement taking preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the suit, jurisdiction etc. It is contended that land allotted to the plaintiff i.e. B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi was specifically for the purpose of propagation of classical music by Ustad Hafiz Khan Memorial Society, Art and Music and other cultural and artistic activities. The clause 13 of the lease deed reads as under :
"The lessee shall not without a written consent of the lessor carry on, or permit to be carried on, on the said land or any building thereon any trade business whatsoever or use the same or permit the same to be used for any purpose other than that of propagation of classical music by Ustad Hafiz Ali Khan Memorial Society (art & music and other cultural and artistic activities) or do or suffer to be done therein in any act, or thing whatsoever which Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 4 of 30 in the opinion of the lessor may be nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to the lessor and persons living in neighbourhood."
7. It is further the case of the defendant that plaintiff started using the allotted land for commercial purpose by letting out 90% of the property to M/s. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd. without permission. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued and on finding the reply of plaintiff unsatisfactory, the lease deed was cancelled. The matter was referred to the Estate Officer, who has already initiated the eviction proceedings.
8. According to the defendant, various societies were allotted land for institutional purposes for social/charitable/educational purposes in Qutab Institutional Area. The builder namely Anant Raj Agencies through Mr. Anil Sarin/Mr. Ashok Sarin and their associates have taken over many such societies and have let them out for commercial purposes, contrary to the original purpose of allotment. Habitat India Memorial Society is one of such society situated at C-3, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi for the purposes of research centre. It is pleaded that suit has not disclosed any cause of action and is abuse of process of law as also improperly valued.
9. On merits, it is submitted that plaintiff had let out 90% of the land/property illegally and in contravention of the lease deed. The society cannot carry on its activities in furtherance of its aims and objectives. The subletting policy of the defendant is applicable only for Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 5 of 30 banks and those engaged in allied activities, that too, upto the extent of 25% of the area subject to prior permission. Even if the application for permission has been moved as per policy, the area of subletting cannot be more than 25%. No proof of application having been made or payment having been made by the plaintiff is enclosed. The field staff of defendant visited and inspected the property and as per their report, more than 90% of the area has been sublet. The competent authority has canceled the allotment and determined the lease deed on account of unauthorized subletting. The occupation of the plaintiff over the property has become unauthorized and therefore the matter was referred to the Estate Officer under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The notice has been issued by Estate Officer U/s.4 of the Act and therefore suit is not maintainable. It is specifically pleaded that plaintiff had sublet the entire ground floor, first, second, third, fourth and fifth floors and ½ portion of the sixth floor to M/s. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd., while plaintiff itself is in possession of only the basement and part of sixth floor. Denying the averments of the plaint, it is contended by the defendant that plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs under the present suit and accordingly, suit be dismissed with exemplary costs.
10. Plaintiff has filed replication reiterating the averments of the plaint and denying and controverting the assertions of written statement.
11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 18.07.2006 :
Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 6 of 301. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable due to non-service of notice under Section 53-B of the DDA Act, 1957? OPD.
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
5. Relief.
12. In evidence, plaintiff examined PW1 Surender Kumar Gupta, authorised representative who has tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents :-
1. Certified copy of the Board Resolution dated 29.11.2022 Ex.PW-1/2;
2. Copy of Lease Deed dated 28.08.1980 Ex. D-1;
3. Copy of Sanctioned plan Ex. PW-1/5;
4. Office copy of the application for Sub-letting dated 28.06.2002 given to DDA Ex.PW-1/7;
5. Copy of acknowledgment of receipt issued by the defendant vide receipt No. 00097 dated 28.06.2002 Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 7 of 30 Ex.PW-1/8;
6. Copy of the lease deed executed between plaintiff and M/s. Ernst & Young Private Limited Mark A;
7. Deposit challan No. 23931 for Rs.8,01,867/- dated 28.06.2002 Ex.PW-1/10.
8. Show-cause notice dated 28.07.2005 Ex P-1.
9. Copy of deposit challan No. 3641 dated 24.08.2005 Ex.PW-1/12.
10. Copy of reply dated 29.08.2005 Ex P-2.
11. Copy of its acknowledgment dated 30.08.2005 Ex.P-3.
12. Copy of the cancellation letter dated 16.12.2005 Ex.P-4.
13. Copy of certificate issued under Income Tax Act, 1961 vide No. CIT-VI/TE(278)/80/1377 dated 10.03.1981 Mark B.
14. Copy of Memorandum of Association of the society Ex. PW-1/3
15. Photocopy of guidelines dated 10.12.1999 Mark C.
16. Office order No.1 of 2008 dated 17.01.2008 and office order No. 4 of 2012 dated 22.08.2012 Ex. PW- 1/16 (Colly) 5 pages;
17. Copy of certificate issued under Income Tax Act 1961 dated 10.03.1981 Ex.PW-1/17.
13. This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 8 of 3014. DW-1 Aatish Gupta, Assistant Director, DDA is a summoned witness on behalf of defendant/Delhi Development Authority and has tendered his affidavit in evidence, Ex.DW1/A, wherein he has relied upon the documents which are already exhibited and has also relied upon the Inspection Report dated 28.07.2005 Ex.DW-1/1. The witness has been cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
15. I have heard Sh. Rakesh Kumar Lakra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Ms. Promila Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the defendant and also examined written submissions filed on behalf of both the sides. I have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and documents filed on record.
16. My findings on the issues of this case are as follows:-
Issue no.1 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable due to non-service of notice under Section 53-B of the DDA Act, 1957? OPD.
17. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction with respect to the cancellation of lease deed relating to property no. B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. The interim injunction has also been prayed for by way of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Vide order dated 25.01.2006 interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 9 of 3018. Section 53B of DD Act provides for service of notice pertaining to suits, which is required to be given to DDA and reads as under:-
"Section 53B. Notice to be given of suits.-
(1) No suit shall be instituted against the Authority, or any member thereof, or any of its officers or other employees, or any person acting under the directions of the Authority or any member or any officer or other employee of the Authority in respect of any act done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of this Act or any rule or regulation made thereunder until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been, in the case of the Authority, left at its office, and in any other case, delivered to, or left at the office or place of abode of, the person to be sued and unless such notice states explicitly the cause of action, the nature of relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed and the name and place of residence of the intending plaintiff and unless the plaint contains a statement that such notice has been so left or delivered.
(2) No suit such as is described in sub-section (1) shall, unless it is a suit for recovery of immovable property or for a declaration of title thereto, be instituted after the expiry of six months from the date on which the cause of action arises.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to apply to a suit in which the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by the giving of the notice or the postponement of the institution of the suit."Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 10 of 30
19. In the case of Yashoda Kumari & Ors. Vs MCD & Ors.
2003 SCC OnLine DEL 101, the court made observations as to the nature and mandate of notice under Section 53B of DD Act as under:-
"11. Apart from this, we find that the appellant's suit was already registered by the Court first and ex parte interim order was also passed in this. It was thereafter transferred to District Court along with the application for grant of leave. From this it could also be easily presumed that the Court had impliedly granted the leave to institute the suit or that the notice stood waived in the facts and circumstances of the case. This aspect seems to have gone totally unnoticed with Trial Court proceedings mechanically; in the matter to dismiss the suit for want of notice under Section 80, CPC.
13. It is true that Section 53-B of DDA Act does not carry a provision analogous to the provisions of Section 80(2) to provide for grant of leave in filing the suit without service of two months notice. But it also contains a proviso in Sub- section (3) which makes the embargo contained in Sub- section (1) inapplicable in a suit in which relief claimed is that of injunction only.
14. But this apart, taking in regard that this Court had registered the suit and granted the stay order and that respondents had contested it all through, even notice under Section 53-B should be deemed waived in the facts and circumstances of the case. After all the purpose of notice under Section 53-B of DDA Act is the same as that of Section 80, CPC i.e. to bring the claim to the authority's notice so that it may concede or contest it. Once the authority had contested it on merits even at preliminary stage, it could not complain of non-service of notice under Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 11 of 30 Section 53-B now. Nor could it be held fatal to justify the dismissal of the suit.
20. By relying upon various precedents, Delhi High Court in the judgment Khosla Medical Institute vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4199 held as follows:-
"31. The interpretation as made by the predecessors of this Court, including the Coordinate Benches as well as the Division Bench clarify the position with respect to notice under Section 53B of DD Act and provides that the intention and object of the provision is to intimate the Authority and bring to its knowledge that a suit may be filed against it so that if remediable, the matter does not see the day of light in the Court of law and is resolved/settled at the pre-litigation stage.
32. Upon perusal of the provision as well as the interpretation attached by this Court, it is found that once the claim culminated into a litigation and reached any forum or any Court of law, requirement of the prior notice befalls to be insignificant. A dismissal on the ground of non- service after the Authority had contested the matter for over 10 years on merits of the case and after a comprehensive and elaborate proceedings on merits, facts and circumstances, considering the material on record as well as the evidence adduced including examination and cross- examination of parties and witnesses and after deploying judicial machinery to the matter, would not only be in contravention of the intention and nature of the provision but would also not meet the ends of justice. In the instant matter, there is no doubt that before the suit reached Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 12 of 30 the Trial Court, amongst the same parties an interim order was also passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, it is also not the issue that the respondent did not have the knowledge of the suit filed and injunction passed in relation to the premises/land in question, which is admittedly a DDA plot leased to the appellant. The prior knowledge of the Authority that a suit has been filed or a claim has been raised against it, would not invoke the bar to maintainability under Section 53B of the DD Act.
34. It is the case of the appellant that since it was seeking injunction against the Authority and the time prescribed by the Authority for vacating the premises was a period of 10 days, there was no scope for service of notice under Section 53B of the DD Act, which necessitates two months‟ notice alongwith all the relevant and requisite details. Admittedly, the order of the respondent directing the appellant to vacate the premises in question within 10 days, was passed and communicated to the appellant on 7th December 1995, pursuant to the finding that the reply dated 17th January 1995 to the Show Cause Notice dated 11th January 1995 was found to be unsatisfactory. A bare reading of Sub- section 3 of the Section 53B of the DD Act, reveals that the legislature, while drafting the Act, intended to accommodate the persons seeking injunction and immediate relief against the act purported to be done by the DDA or any of its members. If the intention of the legislature is not given effect, the operation of the Act itself and the provisions thereunder may fall flat on its face in fulfilling the objective of Act. Similarly, in the case of the appellant, it was seeking injunction against the respondent from eviction from the subject land and hence, the relief sought was urgent and immediate. A service of notice of two months would have changed the entire course of the Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 13 of 30 proceedings between the parties and would have even defeated the purpose of the suit. Therefore, this Court finds force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant.
35. Accordingly, with respect to the Issue I, it is found that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the intention of the legislature and the spirit of the provision under Section 53B of the DD Act as well as the interpretation attached to the provision by the various benches of this Court."
21. In view of the above settled position, I am of the opinion that for the relief of injunction, the issuing of notice to DDA prior to filing of the suit, would have defeated the very purpose of the relief claimed. Also, since the case has been duly contested throughout on behalf of DDA, the purpose of issuance of notice stands served. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
22. Issue no.2 Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971? OPD.
23. Section 15 of Public Premises Act reads as under:-
Section 15 Bar of jurisdiction.--No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of
--
(a) the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, or
(b) the removal of any building, structure or fixture or Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 14 of 30 goods, cattle or other animal from any public premises under section 5A, or
(c) the demolition of any building or other structure made, or ordered to be made, under section 5B, or 8 [(cc) the sealing of any erection or work or of any public premises under section 5C, or]
(d) the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of section 7 or damages payable under sub-section (2), or interest payable under sub-section (2A), of that section, or
(e) the recovery of--
(i) costs of removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal under section 5A, or
(ii) expenses of demolition under section 5B, or
(iii) costs awarded to the Central Government or statutory authority under sub-section (5) of section 9, or
(iv) any portion of such rent, damages, costs of removal, expenses of demolition or costs awarded to the Central Government or the statutory authority.]
24. The DDA / Defendant has relied upon Ex.D-4 which is a notice issued by Estate Officer against the plaintiff society with respect to eviction. The notice is dated 23.03.2006.
25. The present suit was filed in January 2006 when no such notice was in existence nor the same was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the plaintiff by way of present suit is challenging the validity of the cancellation notice dated 16.12.2005, Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 15 of 30 which can be challenged through civil suit for declaration. The bar as laid down by the provision that no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction will not come into operation at the stage suit was filed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
26. Issue no.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP.
Issue no.4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
27. The issues no.3 and 4 are taken up together being interconnected.
28. The basis of this case is perpetual lease deed dated 29.08.1980 (Ex.D-1) executed between the parties to the present suit. The relevant clauses of the said deed are as follows:-
II (5) a) The Lessee shall not, sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the said land or any building thereon except with the previous consent in writing of the Lessor which he shall be entitled to refuse in his absolute discretion.
PROVIDED that, in the event of the consent being given the Lessor may impose such terms and conditions as he thinks flt and the Lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover the whole or a portion as the Lessor may in his Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 16 of 30 absolute discretion determine of the unearned increase in the value (i.e.) the difference between the premium paid and the market value of the said land at the time of sale, transfer, assignment, of parting with the possession and the decision of the Lessor in the respect of the market value, shall be final and binding.
(13) The Lessee shall not without the written consent of the Lessor carry on, or permit to be carried on, on the said land or in any building thereon any trade or business what-
soever or use the same or permit the same to be used for any purpose other than that of propagation of classical music by Ustad Hafiz Ali Khan Memorial Society or do or suffer to be done therein in any act or thing whatsoever which in the opinion of the Lessor may be a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to the Lessor and persons living in neighbourhood.
PROVIDED that if the Lessee is desirous of using the said land or the building there-on for a purpose other that of propagation of classical music by Ustad Hafiz Ali Khan Memorial Society the Lessor may allow such change of user on such terms and conditions including payment additional premium and additional rent as the Lessor may in his absolute discretion determine.
(IV) No forfeiture or re-entry shall be effected until the Lessor has served on the Lessee a notice in writing.
a) Specifying the particular breach complained of and.
b) If the breach is capable of remedy a requiring the Lessee to remedy the breach. and the Lessee fails within such reasonable time as may be mentioned in the notice to remedy the breach if it in capable of remedy and in the Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 17 of 30 event of forfeiture or re-entry the Lessor may in his discretion relieve against forfeiture on such terms and conditions as he thinks proper.
Nothing in this clause shall apply to for-feiture or re-entry.
a) for breach of covenants and conditions relating to the alteration of the size of the said land and transfer of the said land as mentioned in Clause II, or
b) in case this lease has been obtained by suppression of any fact, mis-statement, mis-representation or fraud.
29. As per the testimony of PW-1 Surender Kumar Gupta, authorised representative of the plaintiff society, lease deed has been relied upon as Ex.D-1. Witness further deposed that after the lease deed, construction was raised on the land / plot by the plaintiff and building plan was duly sanctioned. Witness relies upon the letter dated 10.12.1999 issued on behalf of Ministry of Urban Development relating to guidelines for utilization of land allotted for various institutional purposes and utilization (Mark C). It is stated by PW-1 that after raising the construction in the year 2001, 25 % of the total built up area i.e. 7265 square feet was let out to M/s Ernst & Young on first floor, second floor, and third floor of the building. The plaintiff also submitted an application on 28.06.2002 seeking permission for sub- letting Ex.PW1/7 with the defendant vide acknowledgment Ex.PW1/8. Plaintiff also submitted rent agreement entered into with M/s Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. along with the application and plaintiff also deposited a sum of Rs.8,01,867/- on account of sub-letting charges vide deposit challan Ex.PW1/10.
Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 18 of 3030. The witness further stated that such permission was granted to the extent of 68% in favour of similarly placed society M/s Population Foundation of India, B-28, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi. It is further contended that defendant without taking any decision on the application for permission for sub-letting so filed by the defendant, issued a show-cause notice dated 28.07.2005 (Ex.PW1/11) alleging that plaintiff has sublet more than 90 % of the built up area, without inspection the property or without issuing any notice for such inspection. As mentioned in the show-cause notice, no visit was done by the field staff of the defendant and accordingly the facts were wrongly mentioned in the show-cause notice. The plaintiff in response to the said show-cause notice, deposited a further sum of Rs.18,62,840/- on 24.08.2005 with the defendant towards sub-letting charges vide deposit challan Ex.PW1/12. The plaintiff duly submitted its reply dated 29.08.2005 Ex.PW1/13 to the show-cause notice and acknowledgment Ex.PW1/14.
31. PW-1 has further deposed that defendant cancelled the allotment and terminated the lease relating to the property in question vide communication dated 16.12.2005 Ex.PW1/15. The ground for cancellation has been incorrect as plaintiff had not sublet 90 % of the built-up area to M/s Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd as only 25 % area was sub- let to the said organization. As such, the cancellation of allotment and termination of lease deed is incorrect and baseless. No opportunity for personal hearing was granted by the defendant before ordering termination.
Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 19 of 3032. PW-1 further deposed that defendant in collusion with Municipal Corporation of Delhi got the property sealed on 15.11.2006. However, the belongings were removed after taking permission from the High Court and since then the property is vacant and alleged misuse has been removed in the year 2007. The plaintiff filed litigation for de- sealing of the suit property and deposited a total sum of Rs.5,82,22,265/- on account of sub-letting charges and as per the order of High Court the property was de-sealed.
33. The witness has further relied upon the subsequent changes in subletting policy vide orders dated 17.01.2008 and 22.08.2012 (Ex.PW1/16). Plaintiff accordingly can be made liable to pay 10 % of the total rent realized from sub-letting. Plaintiff received a total amount of Rs.9,22,22,267/- as rent and more than 10 % thereof has been deposited with the defendant. The issue about applicability of sub-letting policy and recovery of extra money already paid by the plaintiff to the defendant is pending before High Court in CS (OS)No. 934/2012. The lease deed has been illegally determined and it is denied that any terms and conditions have been violated. According to the plaintiff, the condition of the suit property is deteriorating and plaintiff is not able to achieve its objectives. The plaintiff is entitled for restoration of lease deed to use and occupy the property to achieve its objectives.
34. PW-1 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of defendant during which he stated that suit property was allotted to the plaintiff society in the year 1979 and construction was raised in March 2000 and completed in December 2000. It is denied that suit property was not Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 20 of 30 used for the purpose for which allotment was made. Part of the suit property comprising of ground floor, first floor and second floor was let out to M/s Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd in the year 2001 and total rented area was 7200 square feet. Witness further deposed that plaintiff society used to organize seminars, programs and used to honor the artists of classical music and denied the suggestion that no such activities were undertaken by the plaintiff society. The building over the property was constructed upto 6th floor as per sanctioned building plan. The suggestion has been denied that suit property was inspected by the officials of DDA on 28.07.2005 and on 12.10.2006 or that same was found to be sublet to M/s Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. in the form of complete ground floor to 5th floor and half portion of 6 th floor. The suggestion has also been denied that on 12.10.2006, the property was inspected and found to be sub-let to M/s Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd in the form of complete ground floor to 6th floor. Witness reiterated that only part of first, second and third floors have been rented out and total rented area comprises of 7200 square feet. The suggestion is denied that no part of the suit property was being used by the plaintiff's society for its own purpose. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that he has not brought the records of plaintiff society as the same would reveal the rental income from the suit property much more than the declared rental income. According to the witness, M/s Ernst & Young (tenant) was involved in teaching and training. The suggestion is denied that application dated 28.06.2002 Ex.PW1/7 was not submitted in the office of DDA. Witness stated that the permission for subletting was neither objected nor rejected and hence it is to be considered as deemed sanction. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that more than 90 % of the Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 21 of 30 suit premises was let out in contravention of perpetual lease deed or that inspections were carried out by DDA. The suggestion has been denied that terms and conditions of the lease deed have been violated by subletting without permission to a non-permitted organization. Presently, the suit property is in possession of plaintiff's society by the order of High Court. Witness further answered the question that auditorium is situated on the ground floor of the suit property and remaining facilities like open air theater, library, class rooms are on the upper floors of the suit property. PW-1 denied the suggestion that above mentioned facilities have not been provided in the suit property. The suggestion has been denied that cancellation letter 16.12.2005 was issued by DDA as there were breaches of the perpetual lease deed by plaintiff society.
35. On behalf of defendant, Aatish Gupta, Assistant Director has been examined as DW-1. Witness stated that societies which had been allotted on concessional basis started utilizing the premises contrary to the aims and objectives and contrary to the conditions on which land was allotted. In Writ (civil)petition no. 4582/2003 titled Kalyan Sanstha Social Welfare vs Union of India & Ors. orders were passed for sealing such societies and for registration of First Information Report. Plaintiff is one of such society and it had sublet almost entire built-up area to other organizations for commercial purpose by charging rent in violation of terms and conditions of the lease deed. Plaintiff's society was taken over by set of individuals who also took over other similarly placed societies such as Vaitalik Society, Habitat India and Natyaveda Institute of Dance and Music.
Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 22 of 3036. Witness further stated that plaintiff society was inspected by field staff of DDA on 28.07.2005 and it was found that more than 90 % of built-up area was sub-let. The inspection report dated 28.07.2005 has been proved as Ex.DW1/1. Witness confirmed that show-cause notice dated 28.07.2005 was issued by defendant and same was replied by the plaintiff society. It is admitted that sum of Rs.8,01,867/- and Rs.18,62,840/- on account of subletting charges were deposited by the plaintiff upto 30.06.2006. No personal hearing was sought on behalf of plaintiff society. Witness further stated that allotment was cancelled and lease deed was determined as only 25 % of the area was allowed for subletting. It is admitted that policy was amended vide circular dated 10.02.2015 vide which 50 % of the total built-up area was allowed to be sublet in case of socio-cultural institutions exempted under Income Tax Act 1961. The sub-letting policy does not allow any sub-letting to commercial company. Plaintiff society had not handed over physical possession of the suit property and therefore eviction proceedings were initiated against plaintiff society and notice under Section 4 of Public Premises Act was issued to plaintiff society vide Ex.D-4.
37. Plaintiff society, however, challenged the cancellation of allotment and eviction proceedings. The suit property was inspected on 12.10.2006 by a team of officials of DDA in the presence of Sh.Rajesh Chaturvedi, State Manager of the plaintiff society and it was found that building was constructed with basement up to 7 th floor and same was sublet to M/s Ernst and Young from ground floor to 6 th floor while 7th floor was having cafeteria and in this way, plaintiff society had sublet Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 23 of 30 more than 90 % of the area in breach of terms and conditions. Witness also deposed about writ petition no. 4582/2003 titled Kalyhan Sanstha Social Welfare vs Union of India & Ors. about sealing of the property and registration of FIR. Witness further deposed that police filed closure report relating to the FIR. It is admitted that property was sealed by MCD on 15.11.2006.
38. During cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the present case and that with the permission of DDA, plaintiff may be allowed to use the land for the purpose of other than those mentioned in the lease deed. Witness also stated that he has no personal knowledge that similarly placed organizations / societies have been allowed sub-letting. Witness admitted that reasonable opportunity was required to be given to the plaintiff society to rectify breach. According to the witness, 15 days time was granted for reply to show-cause notice dated 28.07.2005. Witness could not tell the names of the persons who had conducted inspection of the property on 28.07.2005 and that no prior notice was given to the society about inspection. Witness could not tell as to who had prepared the inspection report Ex. DW1/1. The suggestion has been denied that no such inspection was carried out or that report is forged and fabricated. Witness admitted that permission was sought by the plaintiff society for sub-letting vide application dated 28.06.2002 and the application was never rejected. It is also admitted that M/s Ernst & Young is a permitted organization as per clause 4 of the terms and conditions as contained in the application dated 28.06.2002. Witness stated that similarly placed society Habitat India had filed a case against DDA for restoration of lease deed and in Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 24 of 30 the said case judgment was passed in favour of society and no appeal was filed by DDA. Witness admitted that after sealing of the suit property, tenant had vacated the suit property. Witness also admitted that DDA is permitting subletting to the extent of 50 % of the built-up space by charging 10% of annual rent realized by the society. It is also admitted that no letter / communication was written to the plaintiff's society by DDA raising objection as to deposition of amount deposited by plaintiff society. Witness has denied that no inspection was carried out either on 28.07.2005 or 12.10.2006 or that name of Rajesh Chaturvedi is fictitiously mentioned in the affidavit. The suggestion has been denied that plaintiff had not sublet 90% of the property or that DDA wrongly requested MCD to seal the property on 07.11.2006 or that there was no misuse of the property by the plaintiff. It is admitted that no personal hearing was given to the plaintiff after show-cause notice dated 28.07.2005. The suggestion has been denied that termination letter dated 16.12.2005 is illegal and contrary to the factual position.
39. On proper analysis and on examining the evidence of both the sides and documents produced in evidence, I am of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration and injunction for the following reasons:-
(i) The lease deed dated 29.08.1980 Ex.D-1 executed between the plaintiff society and the defendant authority, permits subletting with permission of the lessor as well as the policy Mark C dated 10.12.1999 and Ex.PW1/16 (colly) dated 17.01.2008 and 22.08.2012 issued by Land & Development Officer, Government of India also permit subletting by Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 25 of 30 institutions such as plaintiff society. It is not the case of the defendant / DDA that plaintiff has sublet the premises for any prohibited purpose or for creating any nuisance or carrying out illegal activities.
(ii) The permission sought by the plaintiff through application dated 28.06.2002 Ex.PW1/7 (duly mentioning the specifications and particulars such as total area in square feet and sublet area in square feet on different floors) was neither decided nor rejected although same was kept pending by the defendant. Defendant although disputed filing of such application in the pleadings but DW-1 Aatish Gupta admitted in his cross examination that such application was filed by the plaintiff society. Even otherwise, the application dated 28.06.2002 Ex.PW1/7 is on the pre-printed performa issued by Delhi Development Authority/ defendant. Without taking any decision on the application, show-cause notice dated 28.07.2005 was issued alleging violations on the basis of inspection report.
(iii) According to defendant / DDA, inspections were done at the suit property on 28.07.2005 (Ex.DW1/1) and on 12.10.2006 but such inspections could not be proved on record as:-
a. No details as to when such inspection was carried out is disclosed from the report Ex.DW1/1.
b. It is not shown as to who has conducted the inspection or prepared the inspection report.
c. The report does not contain signatures of any witness or official of the plaintiff.Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 26 of 30
d. The signatures on the inspection report have not been identified by the witness of the defendant (DW-1), hence report has not been proved either by primary or secondary evidence. e. No measurements of places / areas or specifications noted in the inspection report.
f. No lease deed showing subletting 90 % of the area is brought on record or proved.
g. The alleged inspection report dated 12.10.2006 has not been placed on record nor any witness has been examined in this respect.
(iv). The charges for subletting have been deposited by the plaintiff society and deposit challans have been proved on record.
(v) Moreover in the year 2006, after the property was sealed by MCD, same was got vacated from the tenants. Therefore, after 2007 and presently, there is no violation existing in the suit property so as to justify determination of lease. Admittedly, FIR registered for misuse culminated in filing closure report by the investigating agency.
(vi). The lease deed provides for due notice to the plaintiff requiring to remedy the breaches in terms of clause IV but no such notice was issued to the plaintiff society calling upon to remedy the breaches and in this way, the defendant itself has not adhered to the terms and conditions of the lease deed before causing its determination.Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 27 of 30
(vii) The evidence, on comparison, is more consistent and convincing from the side of the plaintiff. Witness Surender Gupta (PW-
1) has been able to spell out sequence of events duly corroborated with the documents while the defendant witness (DW-1) has no personal knowledge of the matter and has failed to establish the assertions of the defendant through his testimony. PW-1 was not questioned on various crucial and substantial pleas relating to the case. The communication dated 16.12.2005 whereby lease was determined, does not mention anything about reply of the plaintiff or that the same was found unsatisfactory. Therefore, there has been breach of principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was given to the plaintiff society nor the reply of the plaintiff society was considered before issuing communication cancelling the lease.
(viii) The plaintiff has filed on record, the copy of lease deed dated 02.08.2001 executed between the plaintiff society and M/s Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd showing that first floor, second floor and third floor were rented out to M/s Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. which otherwise is a permitted organization as per terms and conditions detailed in the pre-
printed application Ex.PW1/7 and also provided in policy Mark C and Ex.PW1/16 (colly).
(ix) Witness of the plaintiff has been able to show that similarly placed societies were granted permission to the extent of 68 % of built up area but this part of testimony of witness has not been controverted on behalf of defendant / DDA.
Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 28 of 3040. In the light of above mentioned reasons, I am of the opinion that subletting is permissible to the extent of 25 % of the total built up area, although with the prior permission of the lessor. Even if there was any breach of terms and conditions, specific notice must have been served calling upon the lessee to remedy the breach within the time period failing, only which the action for cancelling the lease could have been taken.
41. The defendant has failed to establish on record through evidence that plaintiff society has sublet more than 90 % of the built up area to M/s Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, communication dated 16.12.2005 whereby lease of the plaintiff society was cancelled, does not qualify the test of fair opportunity, justification, equity and good conscience. The said communication is not sustainable in law and accordingly declared illegal and not binding. Plaintiff society is entitled to restoration of lease and accordingly issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff society and against the defendant.
42. In the result, following reliefs are granted:-
1. It is declared that the cancellation of allotment of land and the lease in respect of the plot no.B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi as communicated vide letter dated 16.12.2005 is illegal and of no effect and not binding on the plaintiff.Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 29 of 30
2. Restore the lease of the plaintiff society and not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff from plot no.B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi without following due process of law.
3. The defendant / DDA, however, is entitled to rent / charges in terms of the policy of the Govt. of India with respect to subletting, payable by the plaintiff society.
43. The suit is accordingly decreed in favour of the plaintiff society.
44. Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
45. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
46. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court
on 18th day of December 2025 ANJU Digitally signed by
ANJU BAJAJ
BAJAJ CHANDNA
Date: 2025.12.18
CHANDNA 14:04:15 +0530
(ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts
ND/18.12.2025
Civil Suit No. 58687-2016 Page 30 of 30