1998 (5) TMI 412 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the application for permission to sell the plot.
2. Calculation of the period for eligibility to sell the plot.
3. Determination of the date of building completion.
4. Calculation of unearned increase.
5. Liability for sub-lease charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Application for Permission to Sell the Plot:
The petitioner made an application to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 20.12.84 seeking permission to sell the plot and building. The DDA delayed the decision, finally granting permission on 23.6.91. The petitioner argued that the delay was not their fault and that the application was complete in all material particulars when submitted. The court agreed, stating that the application did not suffer from any substantial defect and was valid as of 22.12.84.

2. Calculation of the Period for Eligibility to Sell the Plot:
The lease deed, effective from 1.11.74, stipulated that the lessee could not sell or transfer the plot without the lessor's consent for ten years. The court clarified that the ten-year period should be calculated from 1.11.74, the date the lease became effective, not from the date of the formal execution of the lease deed on 28.2.77. Thus, the petitioner was eligible to apply for permission to sell the plot on 1.11.84.

3. Determination of the Date of Building Completion:
The petitioner completed the building and applied for a completion certificate on 19.5.78. The DDA issued the certificate on 22.6.88. The court referred to the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, which state that if the authority does not communicate approval or refusal within 60 days of the notice of completion, the building is deemed approved. Therefore, the court deemed the building completion date as 19.7.78, making the petitioner eligible to sell the plot on 22.12.84, as three years had elapsed since the building's completion.

4. Calculation of Unearned Increase:
The lease deed required the calculation of unearned increase based on the market value at the time of sale. The petitioner argued that the unearned increase should be calculated using the rates from 1984-85, the year they applied for permission to sell, not the rates from 1991-92 when permission was granted. The court agreed, citing legal principles that prevent a party from benefiting from its own delay. The DDA was directed to calculate the unearned increase based on the 1984-85 rates.

5. Liability for Sub-Lease Charges:
The petitioner sought permission to sub-let part of the plot on 12.8.84, which was granted for the period from 1.11.84 to 31.10.85. The court noted that the petitioner would remain liable for sub-lease charges until the permission to sell was granted on 20.6.91. The petitioner indicated readiness to pay any outstanding sub-lease charges.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the DDA's demand for unearned increase calculated using 1991-92 rates. The DDA was directed to recalculate the unearned increase using 1984-85 rates and to execute the conveyance deed upon payment. The petitioner was required to clear any outstanding sub-lease charges before selling the property. No order as to costs was made.