M/S Designer Park Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited vs State Of U.P. And Others

Heard Sri P.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suresh Singh Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to refund the wrongly realized amount of Rs. 29,22,675.00 with interest to the petitioner's Society.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to issue a 'Non Dues Certificate' in favour of the petitioner's Society at an early date, which may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(c) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) Award the costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner."

FACTS:

The present dispute relates to Group Housing Plot No. B-009/1A, Sector 62, NOIDA (hereinafter referred to as "the leased plot") and the payment of one-time lease rent paid by the petitioner to NOIDA (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority"). The petitioner contends that the one-time lease rent was paid before the execution of the lease deed, whereas the Authority contends that the one-time lease rent was not paid in full, thus resulting in the issuance of a demand notice for the balance amount.

The petitioner was allotted a Group Housing plot, namely, Group Housing Plot No. B-9/1-A, Sector 62, Noida, under the Group Housing Scheme No. GHP/01/2001 (1). The allotment letter was issued on 19.05.2001. Clause 3 of the allotment letter provided for payment on lease rent either on a yearly basis or by way of one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 times the yearly lease rent payable at the time of execution of the lease deed. The possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner through a possession letter dated 08.01.2002.

The petitioner, by means of challan no. 14940 dated 08.01.2002 deposited Rs. 5,56,700/- and by means of challan No. 14943 dated 21.02.2002 deposited Rs. 55,67,000/-. It is averred by the petitioner that the aggregate amount of Rs. 61,23,700/- constituted one-time lease rent payable prior to the execution of the lease deed. Thereafter, the lease deed was executed between the petitioner and Noida on 28.02.2002. Clause II (a) of the lease deed records that the petitioner has made full payment of one-time lease rent.

On 09.01.2004, the Authority issued a letter to the petitioner stating that the sum of Rs. 17,64,605/- was due towards the leased plot and directing the petitioner to deposit the same in the designated bank account of the Authority. Subsequently, on 13.03.2006, another letter was issued by the Authority to the petitioner stating that after adjustment of records, a sum of Rs. 2,552/- remains due till 30.08.2006. The letter further stated that "the amount due towards Lease rent at the time of the lease deed is being adjusted towards Lease rent on an annual basis". The petitioner replied by stating that an amount of Rs. 2600/- has been deposited vide receipt no. 1430 on 27.02.2006. It was further asserted that the one-time lease rent had already been deposited, and the matter stood settled. A request was also made for the issuance of a No Dues Certificate from the Authority.

Thereafter, on 24.04.2006, a demand notice was issued stating that in response to the letter of the petitioner dated 23.03.2006, an outstanding payment of Rs. 29,22,675/- is due towards one-time lease rent. The petitioner was directed to deposit the same in the account of the Authority.

An office order dated 17.05.2006 was issued by the Chief Finance and Accounts Officer, NOIDA, stating that if the accounts office found any shortfall in the total amount of lease rent deposited, then only the balance amount, along with simple interest, will be recovered by treating the same as payment under the one-time lease rent payment.

On 17.05.2006, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Accounts Officer, Noida, requesting that the issue regarding one-time lease rent be treated as settled, as the entire amount had already been deposited before execution of the lease deed. Thereafter, another letter dated 19.05.2006 was sent to the Authority by the petitioner with regard to the demand raised by the Authority.

On 23.05.2006, the Authority, in its weekly meeting, passed a resolution holding that the petitioner had initially obtained possession by depositing one year's lease rent. Thereafter, at the time of execution of the lease deed, i.e. 28.02.2002, only "Ten years lease rent" was deposited instead of "Eleven years lease rent" Consequently, the Committee resolved that the amount deposited would be adjusted and a demand would be raised for the balance towards one-time lease rent.

On 13.06.2006, a fresh demand notice reiterating the earlier demand of Rs. 29,22,675/- was issued to the petitioner. In pursuance of the demand so raised, the petitioner deposited Rs. 29,22,675/- under protest vide challan no. 010546 on 28.06.2006. Thereafter, a letter was sent to the Authority on 29.06.2006 stating that the amount had been deposited under protest while reserving the right to challenge the demand and requesting confirmation that no further dues remained outstanding.

Subsequently, another demand notice dated 03.07.2006 was issued to the petitioner reiterating the same demand of Rs. 29, 22,675/. A reply dated 14.07.2006 to the demand letter dated was sent to the Authority seeking a review of the amount deposited earlier under protest. Further prayer was made for the issuance of a no dues certificate.

Ultimately, on 15.12.2006, the Authority issued the no dues certificate to the petitioner. Since the petitioner remained aggrieved by the demand and recovery of Rs. 29,22,675/-, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a refund of the amount deposited under protest.

PETITIONER'S SUBMISSION:

Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions:

(i) It was contended that the petitioner had deposited the entire one-time lease rent prior to the execution of the lease deed. The deposit of Rs. 5,56,700/- on 08.01.2002 and the deposit of Rs. 55,67,000 on 21.02.2002. Both the deposits were towards the one-time lease rent payment. There was no default in the payment of one-time lease rent and hence the subsequent demand of Rs. 29,22,675/- was illegal and arbitrary. Thus, the amount so deposited under protest is liable to be refunded.

(ii) Learned counsel submitted that the allotment letter specifically provided two alternative remedies, namely payment of yearly lease rent or payment of one-time lease rent, with an option of paying a yearly lease rent or a one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 times the lease rent. The petitioner exercised the option of payment of one-time lease rent payment and deposited the entire amount of Rs. 61,23,700/- by 21.02.2001. Thus, as per the conditions of the allotment letter, the one-time lease rent was paid before the execution of the lease deed.

(iii) It was further submitted that the lease deed also confirmed that the one-time lease rent had been paid. Reliance was placed upon Clause III (a) of the lease deed, which specifically records that the lessee has made full payment of the one-time lease rent.

(iv) Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner participated in a special camp organised by the Authority to clear the dues, if any, of the petitioner with regard to the lease. After due verification of the documents at the special camp, it was found that only Rs. 2,552/-remained due from the petitioner, which was duly deposited vide receipt no. 1430 on 27.02.2006.

(v) It was argued that the subsequent demand of Rs. 29,22,675/-towards the alleged balance amount of one-time lease rent is patently illegal, particularly when the entire one-time rent had already been deposited prior to the execution of the lease deed. It was further submitted, in the letter dated 24.04.2006,no calculations were provided to show as to how the amount was being demanded.

The impugned demand was also perverse with the earlier letter issued after the special camp, only Rs. 2,552/- had been shown as outstanding and which amount was already deposited by the petitioner.

(vi) Learned counsel further contented that the calculations furnished in the supplementary counter affidavit are illegal and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, the calculations do not take into account the payment of one-time lease rent as categorically stated in the lease deed. It was submitted that such an admission in the lease deed cannot subsequently be superseded by any calculation to the contrary.

(vii) It was next argued that the office order dated 17.10.1998 is not applicable as the allotment conditions did not specify any such condition. The allotment letter provided an option of yearly rent or an option of one-time lease rent @ 11 times the yearly lease rent. Since the petitioner had exercised the option of one-time lease rent in accordance with the allotment conditions, the petitioner could not subsequently be subjected to conditions contained in office orders which were never communicated or made part of the contract.

(viii) Learned counsel also submitted that, the resolution passed by the Committee as patently illegal and arbitrary. It was submitted that the resolution was passed ex parte, as the petitioner was never heard before the passing of the resolution, which inflicted civil consequences upon the petitioner. It was further contended that the resolution was also never communicated to the petitioner, and therefore, it does not bind the petitioner in any manner. The illegality is further compounded by the fact that the lease deed mentioned that there are no dues towards one-time lease rent.

(ix) Reliance was also placed upon the RTI reply dated 26.12.2006, wherein the Authority itself accepted that only an amount of Rs. 1,39,175/- remained payable. Learned counsel pointed out that the Chief Accounts and Finance Officer had specifically endorsed the remark "one-time accepted". Therefore, the subsequent demand of a substantially higher amount was wholly perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to the Authority's own records.

(x) Lastly, it was submitted that the office order dated 27.05.2000 is not applicable to the petitioner's case, as it only applied to cases where the lessee wished to transfer from a yearly mode of payment to one-time lease rent. Since the petitioner had opted for one-time lease rent from the very inception, the said office order has no relevance to the present dispute.

RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3 SUBMISSIONS :

Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 made the following submission to refute the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel:

(i) It was submitted that the petitioner never deposited one-time lease rent in one go. As per the respondents, at the time of execution of getting the license agreement on 08.01.2002, only one year's rent was deposited, whereas on 21.02.2002, ten years' lease rent was deposited. Thus, at no point of time, the lease rent for eleven years deposited. As per the policy of the Authority, one-time lease rent was required to be deposited either at the time of the license agreement or at the time of execution of the lease deed, whichever is earlier.

(ii) Learned counsel further relied upon the office order dated 17.10.1998, which clearly states that the lease rent shall be deposited either on the date of possession or at the time of execution of the lease deed, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the petitioner should have deposited one-time lease rent for 11 years at the time of getting possession, i.e. on 08.01.2001 itself. Since only ten years' lease rent was deposited on 21.02.2002, the payment could not be treated as one-time lease rent.

(iii) It was further argued that the lease rent was deposited on two different dates; it cannot be assumed that the one-time lease rent has been deposited.

(iv) Learned counsel submitted that the Committee resolved that the petitioner had deposited lease rent on two different dates, which cannot be treated as one-time lease rent. Consequently, the Committee resolved that the amounts already deposited be adjusted and the balance amount be recovered from the petitioner, pursuant to which the demand of Rs. 29,22,675/- was raised. It was thus contended that the demand represented the legitimate balance amount payable towards one-time lease rent.

(v) It was also argued that the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the letter dated 17.05.2006, as the petitioner never deposited one-time lease rent in one go. The benefit could only be given if the rent was deposited for 11 years in one go. The deposit of 10 years' rent cannot be treated as one-time lease rent.

(vi) Learned counsel further submitted that the subsequent letter dated 03.07.2006 was issued by mistake due to some miscommunication between different departments of the authorities, and therefore, the letter does not create any right in favour of the petitioner.

(vii) It was next contended that since no dues certificate had been issued to the petitioner on 15.12.2006, the grievance raised in the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as such.

(viii) Learned counsel further submitted that an amount of Rs. 1,39,175/- was payable by the petitioner towards the lease rent which was due from 08.01.2001 till 31.03.2001. Therefore, the calculation given in the RTI reply was only with regard to the said period. Reliance was placed upon the office order dated 27.05.2000, which states that for calculating lease rent, financial years shall be considered from April 1st to March 31st. Accordingly the rent payable from 08.01.2001 till 31.03.2001 would be Rs. 1,39,175 (Rs. 5,56,700 * 3/12 = Rs. 1,39,175)

(ix) It was also contended that, as per the office order dated 27.05.2000, if the allottee wishes to make a one-time lease rent, then the earlier deposited lease rent shall not be adjusted for calculating the one-time settlement amount. Therefore, the earlier amount deposited on 08.01.2002 cannot be adjusted as one-time lease rent.

(x) Lastly, it was argued that the amount of Rs. 29,22,675/-represented the balance amount remaining after deducting the earlier amount deposited as yearly rent. Since the petitioner had not opted for a one-time lease rent, the deposit of Rs. 61,23,700/- was adjusted towards yearly rent, and the demand of Rs. 29,22,675 was the balance amount left, which the society had to pay as a one-time settlement amount as per the resolution of the Committee.

Mr. Suresh Singh learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 adopted the arguments made on behalf of respondents nos 2 and 3. He has further submitted that once the no dues certificate was issued in favor of the petitioner, the grievance raised in the writ petition stood redressed and the writ petition deserve to be dismissed. It was further submitted that as per the calculations attached in the supplementary counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner never deposited once time lease rent in accordance with the policy and as per the resolution passed by the Committee, the balance amount of Rs. 29,22,675/- was lawfully demanded from the petitioner, which amount has already been deposited by the petitioner. Accordingly, it was contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground as well.

We have heard the rival submissions submitted by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. On the basis of the submission and records annexed, the following points of determination are framed for adjudication of the dispute.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:

The points of determination are as follows :-

(I) Whether the amounts deposited by the petitioner on 08.01.2002 (Rs. 5,56,700/-) and 21.02.2001 (Rs. 55,67,000/-) can be treated as a one-time lease rent deposit or not?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any refund with regard to the Rs. 29,22,675/- deposited by the petitioner on 28.06.2006?

DISCUSSION:

It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was allotted the leased plot upon payment of certain consideration. The consideration paid before the allotment is not the subject matter of the present dispute. The present dispute is confined to the deposit of two amounts on 08.01.2002 and 21.02.2002, which the petitioner treats as one-time lease rent as the same were deposited before the execution of the lease deed on 28.02.2002. However, the Authority does not treat the same as one-time lease rent and categorically maintains the view that since rent was deposited on two different dates therefore the first date i.e. 08.01.2002 was for the yearly rent due till 31.03.2002 while the amount deposited on 21.02.2002 represented lease rent for only ten years and, therefore, did not satisfy the requirement of payment of eleven years' lease rent .

Before adverting to the rival contention advanced by the parties, it is necessary to keep in mind that the parties to the present dispute are governed by the contract entered into between the parties. More specifically, the allotment deed was issued in favour of the petitioner and the lease deed was executed between the parties. These two documents would govern the respective merits of the arguments advanced by the parties as the parties with consent have entered into the same.

The allotment letter was issued to the petition on 19.05.2001. The allotment letter, amongst other clauses, contained a clause with regard to payment of lease rent. Clause 3 of the allotment letter is reproduced below:

"3. LEASE RENT: The annual lease rent shall be payable in advance every year @ 1% p.a. of the total premium of the plot. This lease rent shall be enhanced after every 10 years, and this enhancement will not exceed 50% of the lease rent last thus fixed.

First such payment shall fall due at the time of execution of the lease deed. Delay in payment of the advance lease rent will be subject to payment of interest @ 18% p.a. compounded every half-yearly. The onus of payment of lease rent would remain with the allottee/lessee.

OR

You also have the option to pay 11 years' lease rent @ 1% p.a. of total premium as one-time lease rent at the time of execution of the lease deed of the plot."

Thus, the allotment letter firstly specified the agreed lease rent, which is 1% of the total premium of the plot as specified in the allotment letter. Secondly, the allotment letter gave two options to the allottee for payment of annual lease rent. The first option available to the allottee was to pay yearly lease rent throughout the subsistence of the lease, subject to enhancement after every ten years, provided that such enhancement would not exceed 50% of the lease rent previously fixed. The second option was to pay @ 11 years lease rent (Rs. 5,56,700/- * 11 times = Rs. 61,23,700/-) in one go at the time of the execution of the lease deed.

It is significant to note that the allotment letter does not mention any other condition with regard to payment of lease rent. It is noteworthy that the allotment letter does not mention the office orders dated 13.10.1998 and 27.05.2000, relied upon by the Authority with regard to payment of annual lease rent.

Subsequently, possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner on 08.01.2002, and thereafter, the lease deed was executed between the parties on 28.02.2002. The lease deed also contains the installments due from the petitioner with regard to the total consideration of the plot and the agreed lease rent. The lease rent payable as per the lease deed is given in clause II (a), which is reproduced below:

"a) Yielding and paying therefore yearly in advance during the said term unto the lessor in the month of September for each year the yearly lease rent indicated below :- 1% of the total premium for the first 10 years, and after 10 years, the lease rent may be enhanced by the Authority from time to time whenever the Authority deems necessary. This extent of enhancement shall not be called in question by the lessee. In case of default in payment of advance lease rent, the interest @ 18% per annum compounded at every half year on the overdue amount shall also be payable. The lessee may exercise the option for depositing a lump sum one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 times the present amount of lease rent."

Thus, the lease deed also contained the condition with regard to payment of one-time lease rent calculated @ 1% of the total premium of the plot.

The lease deed also contained a clause which clearly stated that the lessee had made full payment of plot premium, interest and one-time lease rent (emphasis supplied). Clause III (a) of the lease deed is reproduced below:

"III.......

(a) The lease Deed of the plot has been executed, and the Lessee has made full payment of the plot premium, interest and one-time lease rent."

Thus, the lease deed contains a categorical admission by the Authority that the one-time lease rent has been paid in full.

The petitioner deposited Rs. 5,56,700/- on 08.01.2002 and thereafter made a deposit of Rs. 55,67,000/- on 21.02.2002. Prior to execution of the lease deed dated 28.02.2002, the petitioner had deposited an aggregate amount of Rs. 61,23,700/-, which exactly corresponds to eleven times the yearly lease rent payable under the allotment conditions. The total amount on one-time lease rent as per the Authority is also Rs. 61,23,700/- but the Authority in reply has contended that the deposit on 08.01.2002 was towards yearly lease rent and cannot be adjusted towards one-time lease rent deposit. The amount deposited on 21.02.2002 for an amount of Rs. 55,67,000 was only 10 time of the annual lease rent and therefore did not constitute the one-time lease rent payment.

The allotment letter executed between the parties contained a specific condition with regard to payment of lease rent. The allottee either had the option of making yearly lease rent or could make a one-time lease rent payment equivalent to 11 times the yearly rent. It is well settled position of law that the contract has to be read as a whole, and there can be no deviation from the terms of the concluded contract. Since the payment was to be done under the conditions mentioned in the allotment letter, including the lease rent, the conditions mentioned in the allotment letter would be binding upon the parties. The Authority has also not averred that the terms of the allotment letter are not binding.

The principal question that therefore arises is whether the payment made on two different dates can be treated as a one-time lease rent payment or not? Clause 3 of the allotment letter does not specify that a lump sum payment has to be made before availing the one-time lease rent option. The allotment letter is silent in this regard. However, when the lease deed was executed on 28.02.2002, the lease deed specifically mentioned in Clause III (a) that one-time lease rent has been paid in full. This clause of the lease deed has not been disputed by the Authority in any of its pleadings. Since the lease deed is a concluded contract between the parties and the allotment has never been rescinded for any violation of the lease deed, therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that the Authority was satisfied that the one-time lease rent stood paid at the time of execution of the lease deed. In [(2004) 8 SCC 644]United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, the Supreme Court held that:

"14. Therefore, it is settled law that the terms of the contract have to be strictly read and the natural meaning given to it. No outside aid should be sought unless the meaning is ambiguous."

In [(2008) 1 SCC 1]Nabha Power Vs. Punjab SPCL, the Supreme Court, while dealing with contractual terms clear sounded a word of caution that implied terms should not be read in the terms of the contract, and a contract should be read as it reads, as per its express terms. The Supreme Court held that:

"72. We may, however, in the end, extend a word of caution. It should certainly not be an endeavour of commercial courts to look to the implied terms of a contract. In the current day and age, making of contracts is a matter of high technical expertise, with legal brains from all sides involved in the process of drafting a contract. It is even preceded by opportunities of seeking clarifications and doubts so that the parties know what they are getting into. Thus, normally, a contract should be read as it reads, as per its express terms. The implied terms are a concept which is necessitated only when the Penta test referred to aforesaid comes into play. There has to be a strict necessity for it. In the present case, we have really only read the contract in the manner it reads. We have not really read into it any "implied term", but from the collection of clauses, we come to a conclusion as to what the contract says. The formula for energy charges, to our mind, was quite clear. We have only expounded it in accordance with its natural grammatical contour, keeping in mind the nature of the contract."

In the present case, the terms of the concluded contract are clear. The allottee had the option to pay one-time lease rent before the execution of the lease deed. The terms did not specify a lump sum lease rent, and the other clauses of the allotment letter, as well as the lease deed, do not imply such a condition. Therefore, on plain reading of the contract, the one-time lease rent had to be deposited before the execution of the lease deed, which was done by the petitioner.

The issue of whether the one-time lease rent stood deposited can also be examined from another angle. In the special camp held between 20.02.2006 and 25.02.2006 by the Authority for clearing dues, the petitioner, with the intention to get the no dues certificate, participated with all the records. Ultimately, a letter dated 13.03.2006 came to be issued in favour of the petitioner stating that Rs. 2,552/- remained to be paid by the petitioner. It would be relevant to note that before this letter, the Authority submits that another demand letter dated 09.01.2004 for Rs. 17,62,805/- was issued to the petitioner but receipt of the same has categorically been denied by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the Authority did not pursue the said letter as the records do not indicate that any follow up was made on the demand made by the Authority. The demand of Rs. 2,552/- was deposited by the petitioner on 27.02.2006. This letter is not disputed by the Authority; therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn is that the Authority had settled the one-time lease rent issue by issuing the letter dated 13.03.2006.

Apart from the aforesaid circumstance, another indicator of payment of one-time lease rent by the petitioner is the calculations appended in the reply dated 26.12.2006 to RTI Application No. 912 of the petitioner. In the said calculations, the Authority has calculated that the balance amount of Rs. 1,39,175/- remained to be paid, which was the lease rent for the period of 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002 (wrongly mentioned as 31.03.2003 in the calculation). Even in the supplementary counter affidavit, the Authority has accepted the same. The calculation, which incidentally has been approved by the Chief Accounts and Finance Officer of the Authority, is reproduced below:

"Lease rent will commence from 08.01.2002

Lease rent - 08.01.2002 â†'31.01.2003 (3 months)

= 5,56,69,345.0 X 1/100 X 3/12

= 556693 X 3/12

= 5,56,700 X 3/12

= 1,39,175/-

Due as on 08.01.2002 = 1,39,175/-

Paid = 5,56,700/- Balance on 08.01.2002

= (-) 4,17,525

Due on Feb â†' Nill: Balance on Feb (-) 4,17,525/-

One-time Due = 5,56,700 X 11 = 61,23,700 - 4,17,525

= 57,06,175/-

Paid â†' 55,67,000/- Balance 1,39,175/-"

Thus, if the remaining balance on 26.12.2006 was Rs. 1,39,175/-which is accepted by the Authority to be the lease rent due from 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002, then the payment of Rs. 5,56,700 on 08.01.2002 and payment of Rs. 55,67,000/- on 21.02.2002 (Rs. 5,56,700 + Rs. 55,67,000/- = Rs. 61,23,700/-), which is equivalent to 11 times the lease rent, would be considered as irrefutable evidence that the entire one-time lease rent had been paid by the petitioner before the execution of the lease deed. Thus, nothing remained to be paid by the petitioner towards the one-time lease rent. However, a sum of Rs. 1,39,175/- remained to be paid by the petitioner as lease rent for the period of 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002. Even though the lease deed in clause III (g) specifically mentions that the date of execution of the lease deed shall be treated as the date of handing over possession, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was put in possession on 08.01.2002. Thus, there is no error in the lease rent calculation for the period of 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002, and the petitioner is bound to pay the same.

Keeping in mind the above findings, we are of the considered view that the petitioner had deposited the one-time lease rent before the execution of the lease deed. Furthermore, the petitioner is bound to pay the lease rent calculated for the period of 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002, as the petitioner was put in possession on 08.01.2002.

The Authority, in their submissions, had relied upon certain calculations which were stated in the supplementary counter affidavit. The calculations were based on the fact that the petitioner had only deposited one year's lease rent on 08.01.2002 and thereafter deposited 10 years' lease rent on 21.02.2002. As 11 years lease rent was not deposited therefore the Authority, by resolution, decided to accept the earlier payment as a one-time settlement and demand the rest of the balance. This balance has been justified to be Rs. 29,22,675/- as was initially intimated to the petitioner by letters dated 24.04.2006 and 13.06.2006. However, in both the demand letters, only the demand is stated without stating the actual calculation as to how the figure was arrived at. It goes without saying that the Authority is expected to deal with fairness and non-arbitrariness as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Principles of good administration would require that the decisions of the Authority must withstand the test of consistency, transparency and predictability to avoid of being termed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the considered view of this Court, the demand and the subsequent calculations to justify the demand are fallacious. The reason being that the said demand was raised without considering the clause in the lease deed which stated that one-time lease rent was paid in full and the calculations showing the balance payment which was approved by the Chief Accounts and Finance Officer in the RTI reply. The Authority has also admitted that a balance of Rs. 1,39,175/- was due towards lease rent for a period of 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002, leading to the conclusion that the two deposits were towards one-time lease rent.

As to the applicability of the Office orders dated 17.10.1998 and 27.05.2000, suffice to say that such orders cannot override the specific terms of the concluded contract executed between the parties. The allotment letter and the lease deed contains no reference to such office orders, and therefore, they cannot be impliedly or otherwise be included in the contract terms.

Once this Court is of the view that one-time lease rent stood deposited before the execution of the lease deed, the question that remains to be answered is whether the petitioner is entitled to any refund of Rs. 29,22,675/- deposited by the petitioner on 28.02.2006. As already held above, the one-time lease rent stood deposited, but the petitioner was liable to pay the lease rent from 08.01.2002 till 31.03.2002, as the petitioner was put in possession from 08.01.2002. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,39,175/- as rent towards the period of 08.01.2002 till 31.03.2002 is liable to be deducted from the amount of Rs. 29,22,675/-. Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to a refund after adjusting the amount of lease rent of Rs. 1,39,175/- from Rs. 29,22,675/- already deposited by the petitioner.

ANSWERS TO THE POINTS OF DETERMINATION :

Regarding issue no. 1 as to whether the amounts deposited by the petitioner on 08.01.2002 (Rs. 5,56,700/-) and 21.02.2001 (Rs. 55,67,000/-) can be treated as a one-time lease rent deposit or not, the issue is answered in the affirmative, holding that the petitioner had deposited the entire one-time lease rent before the execution of the lease deed.

Regarding Issue no. 2 as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any refund with regard to the Rs. 29,22,675/- deposited by the petitioner on 28.06.2006, the issue is answered in the affirmative, holding that the petitioner is entitled to a partial refund after deducting the lease rent of Rs. 1,39,175/- for a period of 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002.

CONCLUSIONS:

In light of the findings and the observations given above, the writ petition is partially allowed with regard to the prayer of refund of Rs. 29,22,675/- deposited by the petitioner. The net amount to be refunded shall be calculated in terms of the findings given above, and the balance amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In case of failure to pay the same within three months, an interest of 6% on the balance amount to be refunded shall be added till the date of actual payment. There shall be no order as to cost.