Delhi District Court
Sh.Dayal Singh Kalsi vs Delhi Development Authority on 3 February, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV JAIN :ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
Suit No. 415/04
Date of Institution: 11.9.03
Final Arguments heard on : 17.01.09
Date of Decision: 03.02.09
Sh.Dayal Singh Kalsi
son of late Gian Singh Kalsi
r/o H.No.23B/1,
New Rohtak Road,
Delhi
.... Plaintiff.
Vs.
Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice Chairman,
INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi
.... Defendant
JUDGMENT
1 In brief, the plaintiff Dayal Singh Kalsi has filed the suit in 1 respect of property bearing no.23B/1, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi hereinafter referred as 'suit property' against the defendant/Delhi Development Authority for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction praying therein: I) That defendant, its servants employees and officers may be restrained by decree of permanent injunction not to make any demand of misuser charges with respect to the suit property from the plaintiff as the demand raised by defendant vide notice dt.24.2.03 for an amount of Rs.38,28,712.35 is illegal. II) That defendant, its servants and employees be directed by a decree of mandatory injunction not to recover the above demand of past misuser charges from the plaintiff in future and further may be directed not to recover the same from the property of the plaintiff.
2 Briefly, it is disclosed in the plaint that original lease of the suit property was entered on 11.10.44 between Delhi improvement Trust as lessor and S.Bahadur Singh Dupiya for consideration. The 2 original lease deed was in perpetuity from the date of lease. As per clause VI of the original lease deed, the lessee can not use the land and building constructed thereupon for any other purpose than of residence.
Later on Delhi Improvement Trust was took over by Delhi Development Authority. The suit property was purchased by the father of plaintiff late Sh.Gyan Singh Kalsi through a registered sale deed from the original lessee of Delhi Development Authority.
After the purchase of property, the defendant recognized the plaintiff's father as lessee of the said plot of land accepting lease money from him.
3 The suit property is measuring about 450 sq.yards. The entire first, second and major portion of the ground floor of the building constructed on the suit property had been used for residential purposes except a small portion on the ground floor, which was being 3 used by four different tenants for commercial purpose. When the property was purchased by the plaintiff's father in the year 1970, the tenants were using and carrying the commercial activities in those 4 rooms on the ground floor, much prior to the purchase of the property. The previous owner had filed eviction petition against these tenants. The father of the plaintiff had also filed eviction petition against the said tenants. There is a long history of litigation between the parties. Sh.Gyan Singh Kalsi, the father of the plaintiff had filed four eviction petition against tenants Ishwar Dutt, Sh.Bhawani Dutt, Sh.M.C.Kapoor and Munshi Ram in December 1994, after serving a notice under Section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act. In these eviction petitions it was pleaded that vide letters dt.14.2.74 and 9.6.76, DDA has threatened the landlord to cancel the lease of the property, in case the commercial/business activities remained continued. These eviction petitions were dismissed by the court of Sh.I.C.Tiwari, the then ARC vide judgment dt.15.5.84 on the ground that at the time of purchase of property by Sh.Gyan Singh Kalsi, similar eviction petitions were pending, which were filed by earlier 4 landlord, which had been dismissed under order 9 rule 8 CPC. Therefore, Ld.ARC held that by applying the principal 'res judicata' eviction petitions were not maintainable.
4 Appeal were preferred by late Sh.Gyan Singh Kalki challenging the order of Ld.ARC in respect of tenants Munshi Ram and M.C.Kapoor, which were accepted and the cases were remanded back. Vide order dt.23.5.85 tenants were directed to pay penalty within two months or to face eviction and also to stop misuser within two months. Against the said order, appeals were preferred by tenants before the Rent Control Tribunal. Ld.Rent Control Tribunal again remanded back the matter to the court of ARC. Vide common judgment dt.6.9.88, Sh.Prem Kumar, the then Ld.ARC, Delhi decreed the eviction petition against Sh.Munshi Ram and M.C.Kapoor. It was held that DDA was entitled to recover misuser charges for the period 15.3.74 to 30.4.88 which comes to Rs.23,483.65. The tenants were directed to pay the past misuser charges from 15.3.74 t 30.4.88 to DDA. Tenants were also directed to pay the compensation/charges 5 as may be demanded by the DDA for the misuser of the property.
Tenants Munshi Ram and M.C.Kapoor did not pay the misuser of the suit property. They preferred appeals against the above mentioned order of Sh.Prem Kumar, the then Ld.ARC and these two appeals were dismissed by Sh.O.P.Diwedi, the then Ld. Rent Control Tribunal. Thereafter, the said two tenants preferred petition under order 226 and 227 of consitution of India against the order of RCT and ARC. Hon.High Court rejected the said petitions on 9.2.90. The tenants preferred special leave petition to the Hon.Supreme Court, which were accepted. In SLP before Supreme Court, which were converted into a Civil appeal no.3095/1990 titled as Munshi Ram Vs. UOI, DDA was one of the party. It is pointed out in the plaint that before Hon'ble Supreme Court, DDA took adjournment for about two years to finalize a policy decision in respect of the area where the suit property was located. But, ultimately no policy decision was formulated. Vide order dt.10.8.2000, The Hon.Supreme Court up held the order dt.6.9.88 of Ld.ARC. It was observed that the misuser 6 is contrary to the terms of lease, therefore, the tenants were given two months time to abide by the order of Ld.ARC. It is also disclosed in the plaint that landlord has filed the execution petitions against two tenants in the year 1989. Ultimately after long litigation, the tenants surrender the possession to the landlord in eviction petition without making payment of misuser charges either to the landlord or to the DDA. In respect of the litigation between landlord and tenants Ishwar Dutt and Bhawani Dutt, the landlord received back the possession of two shops in August 2002.
5 Sh.Gyan Singh Kalsi had filed a suit against DDA on 8.1.82 for injunction, challenging the notice of DDA for reentry in the suit premises. The interim injunction was granted in the said suit by the court of Sh.M.L.Mehta, the then SJIC in suit no.14/82 titled as Gyan Singh Kalsi Vs.DDA. Appeal preferred by DDA against the said interim injunction order was dismissed in MCA no.168/83. Appeals were preferred before the court of Ld.ADJ, which were dismissed while observing that plaintiff could not stopp the misuse by tenants, 7 but he had taken all the steps which were within his control. Notice dt.4.1.82 was held to be void and illegal. DDA could have take fresh action only after decision of the eviction proceedings.
It is also stated in plaint that plaintiff has filed a criminal civil writ against Smt.Usha Rani and her son for stopping misuser of the property as they were running a Eating House without any licence from MCD. In Civil writ no.343/98 filed on 17.7.98, DDA was one of the party. It has been stated that landlord has taken all legally permissible action bonafidely and he had been in the litigations with tenants from 1974 to 2002.
6 DDA has issued notice dt.31.1.01 to the plaintiff to pay the misuser charges amounting to Rs.38 lacs. Plaintiff vide his reply dt.15.5.01 requested the DDA to recover the said misuser charges from the tenants, who had been misusing the premises. Vide letter dt.13.6.01, defendant call upon the four tenants to pay the misuser charges directly to the defendant/DDA.
8 7 Subsequently another notice dt.24.2.03 was issued by DDA regarding the payment of misuser charges. Reply dt.27.2.03 was sent by the plaintiff stating that misuser charges were to be recovered from the misusers/tenants as per the order of Hon.Supreme Court.
8 It is also pointed out in plaint that notice issued in 1982 by DDA had been held to be void and illegal by the court. The said issue can not be re agitated again as there is the bar of 'Res judicata' in respect of the said issue.
9 Plaintiff stated that he has no other efficacious remedy, therefore, he has filed the suit for permanent injunction. He has assessed the suit at the value of Rs.3,00,260/ for the purpose of jurisdiction. The court fee of Rs.5225/ has been paid along with the plaint.
9 10 In written statement, it was alleged that in the grab of injunction plaintiff has sought declaration in respect of demand raised by DDA vide notice dt.24.2.03 and therefore, the suit is barred under sec.41
(h) of Specific Relief Act. It was further stated in written statement that plaintiff has not properly valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction; that court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit; that plaintiff has no cause of action; that plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts ; that the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as the misuser/tenants has not been impleaded. The material facts pertaining to the suit property and history of litigation was not denied. It was stated that if plaintiff had entered into settlement with the tenant/misuser of the property in dispute. The plaintiff is liable to pay the misuser charges to the defendant. It was pointed out that as per clause 6 of the Original sale deed lessee was not permitted to use the land or building constructed thereupon for any other purpose than the residential purpose without consent in writing of the lessor. It was alleged that plaintiff has colluded with the tenant/misuser and 10 settled the dispute with them without paying the misuser charges to the defendant. it was specifically denied that the defendant was not entitled to recover the misuser charges due to bar of 'Res judicata'. All other material allegations of the plaintiff were disputed. 11 In replication filed by plaintiff, the material contents of the written statement including preliminary objections were denied and the averments of the plaint were reiterated as correct. 12 The issues were framed on 14.9.04 and 14.2.05. Issues framed on 14.9.04 were treated as preliminary issue. After hearing the arguments, vide order dt.27.11.04 it was observed that issue no.2 is basically a mixed question of law and fact and the decision of other two remaining issues was based on issue no.2. Therefore, it was held that all the issues will be decided after evidence of parties. Vide order dt.14.9.04 and 14.2.05 following issues were framed.
1. Whether the suit is barred by Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act?
11
2. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?
3. Whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?
4. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as alleged?
5. Whether the demand raised by the defendant vide notice dt.24.2.03 is illegal?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief if injunction as prayed?
7. Relief 13 Plaintiff has appeared as PW1 and supported his case. He has proved the following documents.
1. PW1/A is the certified copy of letter dt.4.6.74 by the defendant to plaintiff.
2. PW1/1 is the certified copy of judgment dt.15.5.84 passed by the court of Sh.I.C.Tiwari, the then ARC.
12
3. Ex.PW1/2 is the certified copy of judgment passed by the court of Sh.Prem Kumar, the then Ld.ARC, wherein the tenants Munshi Ram and M.C.Kapoor were directed to deposit the misuser charges from 15.3.74 to 30.4.88.
4. Ex.PW1/3 is the certified copy of judgment dt.25.8.89 passed by the court of Sh.O.P.Dvivedi, the then RCT as his Lordship then was
5. Ex.PW1/4 is the photocopy of judgment passed by the Hon.Supreme Court in plaintiff's case.
6. Ex.PW1/5 to PW1/7 are the certified copies of execution proceedings against tenant Munshi Ram including statement of parties dt.18.1.02 when tenants Munshi Ram has surrender the possession of the tenanted premises.
7. Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/9 and PW1/10 are the certified copies of execution proceedings including statement of parties dated 18.1.02 when tenant M.C.Kapoor had surrender the possession of the tenanted premises.
8. Ex.PW1/11 is the certified copy of E673/02 dated 13 21.8.02 titled as G.S.Kalsi Vs.Bacoli Devi, where the tenants surrender the possession.
9. Ex.PW1/12 is the certified copy of EE673/02 dt.21.8.02 titled as G.S.Kalsi Vs.Usha Rani, when tenant Usha Rani surrendered the possession.
10.Ex.PW1/13 is the certified copy of judgment passed by Sh.Rakesh Garg, the then Civil Judge, where the suit filed by the plaintiff was partly allowed against DDA.
11.Ex.PW1/14 is the certified copy of judgment dt.18.5.95 passed by Sh.Kuldeep Singh, then then Ld.ADJ.
12.Ex.PW1/15 is the copy of letter dated 15.5.01 written by the plaintiff to the defendant.
13.Ex.PW1/16 is the letter dt.13.6.01 written by the defendant to plaintiff.
14.Ex.PW1/17 is the letter dt.24.2.03 making the demand of misuser charges from the owner of the property.
15.Ex.PW1/18 is the letter dt.27.2.03 written by plaintiff to DDA.
14
16.Ex.PW1/19 is the certified copy of order passed in execution proceedings in respect to the suit for permanent injunction titled as Dayal Singh Kalsi Vs.DDA.
17.Plaintiff had summoned the record and proved the certified copy of the record Ex.PW2, PW3 and PW4. 14 The defendant has produced DW1 Giri Raj, who has proved the certified copy of lease deed. This witness stated that valuation of the suit was incorrect. He further deposed that plaintiff is liable to pay the misuser charges as there is no privity of contract between the tenants and DDA. During cross examination, DW1 could not tell the parameter of calculation of misuser charges. This witness admitted that two tenants has deposited the misuser charges with DDA in 1990.
DW2 Sh.J.P.Jain, Asst.Accounts Officer stated in his cross examination that misuser charges collected from the tenants have not been adjusted in the calculation sheet. He stated that he was not 15 aware about office order no.23/76 Ex.DW1/P1. He was not aware about the Supreme court case and stated that he has no personal knowledge about the matter.
DW3 Sh.R.P.Sharma, could neither admitted nor deny the fact that as per the office order of DDA only 1% of misuser charges could have been claimed.
15 I have heard the Ld.counsels for parties at length. I have considered the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties. I have gone through the testimony of witnesses and the documents proved on record.
16 Issue wise discussions is as follows: Issue no.1: Whether the suit is barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act?
In written statement, it was alleged by the defendant that in the 16 grab of relief of permanent injunction, plaintiff has prayed for the relief of declaration to get declared the demand of misuser charges as null and void. Therefore, the suit for permanent injunction was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. Ld.counsel for plaintiff has controverted the submissions. It was submitted that a person effected by a void document ( in the present case, " the notice of demand") can file a suit seeking substantive relief and need not to seek any declaration that the said document is void. Ld.counsel for plaintiff has relied on following cases.
1. AIR 1940 Lahore 372
2. AIR 36 1949 Allahabad 301.
3. 28 (1985) DLT 133
4. AIR 1992 Delhi 118 In Sanjay Kaushish Vs. D.C. Kaushish and Others , AIR 1992 Delhi 118, it was held by the Hon'ble Court in para 43 of the judgment that, "Be that as it may, in my view, the well settled 17 principle of law is that if a particular document or decree is void the person affected by the said document or decree can very well ignore the same and file a suit seeking substantive relief which may be available to him without seeking any declaration that the said decree or document is void or any consequential relief of cancellation of the same". After careful consideration of the submissions of Ld.counsels and law laid down by Hon.High Court mentioned above, in my opinion if an act is alleged to be illegal or void, the effected person can file a suit for permanent injunction without seeking declaration. In my opinion, the suit is not hit by section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act as alleged by the defendant. The issue is accordingly decided.
17 Issue no.2 : Whether the suit has been properly valued for 18 the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?
The careful examination of the record makes it clear that suit was valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.3 lacs. But ultimately the court fee of Rs.5225/ had been paid. Nothing material has been brought before me against the correctness of the payment of court fee. The plaintiff has also assessed the suit for the purpose of permanent injunction. Once the suit for permanent injunction is found maintainable, the suit has to be valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction by the plaintiff and accordingly the court fee has to be paid. In my view, the proper court fee has been paid by the plaintiff. The issue is accordingly decided. 18 Issue no.3:Whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?
In view of the findings of issue no.1 and 2, it is clear that suit for permanent injunction has been valued by the plaintiff for the purpose 19 of jurisdiction at Rs.3 lacs plus for the purpose of permanent and mandatory injunction it has been assessed at Rs.130/ for each relief. Therefore, clearly the suit comes within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. The issue is accordingly decided. 19 Issue no.4:Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties?
It was alleged in written statement that suit is bad for non joinder of parties as the tenants/misusers has not been impleaded as party. The suit has been filed challenging the legality of the demand notice raised by defendant/DDA. In this context the tenants, who had already vacated the suit premises has no role to play in the disposal of the suit. In my opinion, the tenants/misusers are not the proper and necessary party and the suit is not bad for non joinder of parties. Issue is accordingly decided.
20 Issue no.5:Whether the demand raised by the defendant 20 vide notice dated 24.2.03 is illegal?
Ld.counsel for plaintiff has advanced mainly following arguments.
a) That there is no contractual liability as per lease deed dt.11.10.44 executed between the DDA and Predecessor of the plaintiff except that the suit property can not be used only for residential purpose.
b) That misuser charges can be determined only under Section 14 (11) of the DRC Act and were determined by the Rent Controller in 1989, which had been paid. DDA had never sought determination of the said charges before the court again. Therefore, defendant can not ask for any misuser charges.
c) That if there is any liability to pay the misuser charges, it is upon the tenants, who were misusing the premises, particularly in view of the order of Ld.ARC and the judgment upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court
d) That there is no legal and valid notice existing under which DDA could have asked the misuser charges from 1974 onwards. 21
e) The notice issued by DDA in 2003 is barred by limitation.
f) That DDA has not taken any action against the defaulty tenants despite orders of Hon.Supreme Court and Additional Rent Controller.
g) That DDA can not claim the misuser charges for the period of two years when during the pendency of matters before Hon.Supreme Court DDA took the adjournments to consider a plan for regularization of commercial activities.
h) That as per order no.23/1976 Ex.DW1/P1,in accordance with clause 8, where the lessee has filed a suit for eviction against defaulty tenants. Only 1% of charges can be recovered as token penalty. In this regard the law has been settled by Hon.High Court of Delhi in a case titled as Sisir Kumar Sen & Others Vs. Union of India and anothers 1996 (2) RLR 507.
I) That the calculation sheet filed by DDA is incorrect as it has not given adjustment of the misuser charges deposited by two tenants in July 1990.
22 21 Ld.counsel for defendant raised following arguments.
a) That as per section 3 Government Grants Act, 1895.
"Government grants to take effect according to their tenor All provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations over contained in any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and the effect according to their tenor, any rule of law, statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding".
In AIR 1938 Calcutta 22 (234), it was held that, "The crown has unfettered discretion under this section to impose any condition, limitation or restriction in its grants and the rights, privileges and obligations of the grantee would be regulated only according to the terms of the grant itself though they are inconsistent with the provisions of any statute or 23 common law".
The said view has also been taken by Hon.Supreme Court in AIR 1973 SC 2520.
b) That there is no privity of contract between the DDA and the tenants. Defendant/DDA has privity of contract with the lessee. Lessor and lessee are governed by the terms of the lease deed, therefore, the contention of plaintiff that misuser charges can only be claimed from the tenants is not maintainable.
c) That contention of Ld.counsel for plaintiff that misuser charges can only be claimed from the tenants is contrary to the terms of lease.
d) That as the privity of contract is between the lessor and lessee as per the lease deed, DDA can recover the misuser charges only from the plaintiff. However, if plaintiff feels that he had paid the misuser charges due to misuse of property by tenants, he may claim it from the tenants. The plea of plaintiff that DDA should have recover the misuser charges from the tenants is not maintainable. 24 22 I have carefully considered the respective submissions of Ld.counsels for parties.
23 The lease deed Ex.DW1/1 clearly provides that it has been executed between the parties in 1943. As per the said lease deed the land and the building constructed thereupon could not have been used for the purpose other than the residential house without the consent in writing of the lessor. It is further stipulated in the lease deed that lessee may take action for the re entry or to claim misuser charges in his discretion, in case of the violation of the condition of the lease deed. From the lease deed Ex.DW1/1, it is clear that privity of contract is between the lessee and lessor.
The contention of Ld.counsel for plaintiff is that in view of the orders of Ld.ARC and the Hon.Supreme Court of India, DDA was entitled to claim the misuser charges from the tenants and not from him. The careful reading of section 14(k) and other provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act makes it clear that in case of misuser of 25 tenanted premises, the tenant may be evicted and he may be asked to pay the misuser charges. In view of these provisions, eviction order were passed by the court of Ld.ARC, which were upheld and tenants were directed to pay the misuser charges directly to DDA. The reading of relevant provisions of DRC Act did not stipulate that the privity of contract in such cases will be between the lessor and the tenants, who have misused the properties. The provisions of DRC Act can not be interpreted in a manner that if tenants fail to pay the misuser charges either to the landlord or to the DDA, the DDA is barred to claim the misuser charges from the landlord. From the reading of judgments and provisions of DRC Act, in my considered opinion, the tenants may be asked by the court to pay the misuser charges, but primarily it is the duty of the landlord to pay the same to DDA. The landlord may recover the misuser charges from the tenants, if paid by him to the lessor. Further more, it is clear from the records place before me that after passing of eviction order, the tenants surrender the possession before the executing courts after a settlement with the present plaintiff. In these execution petitions the 26 DDA was not a party. Plaintiff himself allowed the settlement with the tenants and take over the possession of the premises in question without enforcing the directions of the court in respect of payment of misuser charges by the tenants. Therefore, in my opinion, it can not be said that DDA can not claim the misuser charges from the plaintiff.
24 The next limb of the argument from the side of plaintiff was that the demand raised by DDA was barred by limitation. It is clear from the records that execution petitions filed by the present plaintiff were going on against his tenants. Only after the settlement between the present plaintiff and its tenants before executing courts, the DDA came to know that tenants vacated the premises without paying the misuser charges and thereafter the demand notice has been issued against the plaintiff. Therefore, it can not be said that demand has been raised after expiry of limitation period. 25 Another angle of the matter is that Ld.counsel for plaintiff 27 submitted that no criteria or parameter has been shown by the DDA that, how the misuser charges has been calculated? Testimony of witnesses examined by defendant also failed to establish the formula of calculation of misuser charges. It has been admitted by the defendant witnesses that the misuser charges already deposited by two tenants were not adjusted in the calculation while giving demand notice to the plaintiff. In my view, it has been established by the plaintiff that the quantum of misuser charges rasied by the defendant in impugned notice are not in accordance with the law and contrary of the facts.
26 It was further argued by Ld.counsel for plaintiff that in view of office order Ex.DW1/P1 the misuser charges could have been recovered as a token penalty @ 1% as the plaintiff not only file the suits or the eviction petitions against the tenants, but also got evicted the tenants. These contentions of Ld.counsel for plaintiff is supported by the law laid down by Hon.High Court of Delhi in Sisir Kumar Sen & Others Vs. Union of India & Anothers 1996 (2) RLR 28 507, it was held in this case that, "Petitioners were liable to pay the charges irrespective of the fact that they have got the tenants evicted through Court Petitioners took adequate steps to evict the defaulting tenants and ultimately succeeded in the same, the respondents can only recover one per cent of the charges for the period in question".
In view of office order Ex.DW1/P1 and the law laid down in Sisir Kumar Sen's case, in my considered opinion, the misuser charges could have been claimed by the defendant/DDA from the plaintiff maximum @ 1% for the period in question as it is clear from the record that plaintiff has not only filed the suits/eviction petitions, but also evicted the misusers/ tenants.
26 In the light of the above findings, in my opinion, the impugned demand notice dt.24.2.03 is contrary to law and is not sustainable in 29 the eyes of law. Therefore, the issue is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
27 Issue no.6: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed for?
In the light of the above findings I am convinced that notice dt.24.2.03 issued by defendant/DDA to the plaintiff is contrary to law and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. However, the DDA was entitled to claim misuser charges @1% in view of office order Ex.DW1/P1 and the law laid down in Sisir Kumar Sen's case. In my view plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction. Issue is accordingly decided.
28 Relief In the light of the findings of above mentioned issues, plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction, which is granted in following terms: 30 The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and thereby defendants, its agents, servants, associates and employees etc.are permanently restrained to realize the demand of misuser charges with respect to property no.23B/1, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, from the plaintiff on the basis of notice dt.24.2.03 for an amount of Rs.38,28,712.35 subject to exception that defendant/DDA may claim the misuser charges from the plaintiff in accordance with the criteria laid down in office order no.23/76 dt.31.3.76 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi (Ex.DW1/P1) and in accordance with law. Cost of the suit is awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to R/R after due compliance.
(SANJEEV JAIN) Additional District Judge:Delhi (Central District) Announced in open court on 03.02.09 31 No.415/04 3.2.09 Pr.proxy for the plaintiff.
None for the defendant.
By separate judgment announced in open court, the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to R/R. (SANJEEV JAIN) Additional District Judge:Delhi (Central District) 32