Full Text
Translation output
RSA 312/2014 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 31st October, 2014
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 31st October, 2014
RSA 312/2014 & C.M.No.17779/2014
NEENA VOHRA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manjit Singh Chauhan, Advocate
NEENA VOHRA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manjit Singh Chauhan, Advocate
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate
Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
CM No.17779/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM No.17779/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RSA 312/2014
The appellant – plaintiff had sought direction to respondent by way of mandatory injunction to convert leasehold plot of land measuring 216 square meters bearing No.124, Block-D, Masjid Moth Residential
Scheme, New Delhi into freehold in the name of the appellant – plaintiff.
The appellant’s suit for mandatory injunction was dismissed by trial court but the first appellate court vide impugned judgment has permitted the conversion of the suit property from leasehold to freehold subject to appellant paying the misuser charges.
2014:DHC:5637
The appellant – plaintiff had sought direction to respondent by way of mandatory injunction to convert leasehold plot of land measuring 216 square meters bearing No.124, Block-D, Masjid Moth Residential
Scheme, New Delhi into freehold in the name of the appellant – plaintiff.
The appellant’s suit for mandatory injunction was dismissed by trial court but the first appellate court vide impugned judgment has permitted the conversion of the suit property from leasehold to freehold subject to appellant paying the misuser charges.
2014:DHC:5637
RSA 312/2014 Page 2
At the hearing of this appeal, it was vehemently urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the demand of misuser charges to the tune of `9,86,884/- is not at all justified and in any case the conversion from leasehold to freehold cannot be stalled on account of non-payment of misuser charges. The attention of this court was drawn to Annexure ‘D’ which is the respondent’s file noting to show that verbal orders were issued to recover misuser charges in October, 2001. On behalf of the respondent, it was brought to the notice of this court that there was no challenge by the appellant – plaintiff to the misuser charges and the file noting Annexure ‘D’ has not been acted upon as the demand for misuser charges was made vide letter of 20th September, 2006 on the basis of Circular of 4th June, 2004.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgments and the material on record, I find that in suit for mandatory injunction, the question of payment of misuser charges was not raised by appellant – plaintiff and therefore, the appellant – plaintiff is estopped from raising it in the second appeal. Since the respondent’s file noting of 12th October, 2001 Annexure ‘D’ is not the basis to claim the misuser charges therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 31, 2014 aj 2014:DHC:5637
At the hearing of this appeal, it was vehemently urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the demand of misuser charges to the tune of `9,86,884/- is not at all justified and in any case the conversion from leasehold to freehold cannot be stalled on account of non-payment of misuser charges. The attention of this court was drawn to Annexure ‘D’ which is the respondent’s file noting to show that verbal orders were issued to recover misuser charges in October, 2001. On behalf of the respondent, it was brought to the notice of this court that there was no challenge by the appellant – plaintiff to the misuser charges and the file noting Annexure ‘D’ has not been acted upon as the demand for misuser charges was made vide letter of 20th September, 2006 on the basis of Circular of 4th June, 2004.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgments and the material on record, I find that in suit for mandatory injunction, the question of payment of misuser charges was not raised by appellant – plaintiff and therefore, the appellant – plaintiff is estopped from raising it in the second appeal. Since the respondent’s file noting of 12th October, 2001 Annexure ‘D’ is not the basis to claim the misuser charges therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 31, 2014 aj 2014:DHC:5637