JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.
1. The appellant, with the intention of challenging the order dated 7.11.2003 and the order dated 5.8.2005, filed the present appeal in this Court, which is again beyond the period of limitation.
2. The writ petition is filed by the respondent who is the perpetual sub-lessee of industrial plot bearing No. 16 Rajasthani Udyog Nagar, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi. The said lease was determined by a communication issued by the appellant on 30.06.2000. The said determination of the lease of the respondent was challenged by the respondent by filing the writ petition. In the aforesaid sub-lease dated 31.03.1972 there were terms and conditions prohibiting any subletting. The respondent sublet about 200 sq. meters of the said land to a bank. In view of the aforesaid position, the appellant was of the view that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the sub-lease deed. But the records indicate that the respondent had applied on 13.12.1988 for permission to sublet whereupon the appellant on 23.06.1989 informed the respondent to apply in a prescribed format. The respondent also responded by filing an application in prescribed format on 03.07.1989 along with the relevant documents. The respondent has also been paying subletting charges from time to time in terms of the letter dated 29.05.1998. The appellant-DDA asked the respondent to pay up-to-date subletting charges and get the premises vacated from the bank on 30.11.1998. The respondent has been paying the subletting charges, which is an admitted position, but the appellant did not and could not get the premises vacated from the bank. It is also established from the records that notice was given by the respondent to the bank for vacation of the premises. The said notice is dated 22.5.1998. Despite receipt of the aforesaid notice, the bank did not vacate the premises consequent to which a suit was filed by the respondent seeking for a decree of possession. The suit was filed in the month of June, 2002. A show cause notice was also issued by the respondent which was responded to but subsequently the lease of the respondent was determined by the appellant. The aforesaid determination of the lease was challenged in the writ petition.
3. The learned single judge considered the entire facts as delineated herein before and on consideration thereof, the learned single Judge was of the view that the appellant had condoned subletting to the Bank and also allowed the respondent to get the premises vacated but subject to payment of subletting charges. It was also accepted that the respondent had initiated legal action against the bank for vacation of the premises. It was also held that whatever could be done by the respondent has been done and the intention to get the property vacated is shown and is clear and apparent on the face of the record. In view of the aforesaid, consequently an order was passed by the learned single Judge that on the respondent paying the subletting charges and restoration charges the lease of the respondent should be restored.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed on 07.11.2003, a review application was filed which was registered as Review Petition No. 194/2005. The aforesaid review application was also barred by time and accordingly an application seeking condensation of delay in filing the review application was filed. The learned single Judge held that the applications were filed after about two years of the order and there is no proper explanation for condensation of delay. So far the review application is concerned, it was recorded by the learned single Judge that the submission made by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the statement that restoration charges would be about Rs.5,000/- was incorrect. But, still the learned single Judge dismissed the said application on the ground of enexplained delay of about two years. The appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, filed the present appeal. Since the appeal is also barred by time and there is a delay of about 844 days, an application was filed by the appellant praying for condensation of delay.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents and also have perused the record. A bare perusal of the application praying for condensation of delay would indicate that a stand is being taken that the appellant could not file the appeal in time as against the order disposing of the writ petition, as there was a decision to file a review application. Even if the aforesaid submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant is accepted, the records disclose that the review application was dismissed by order dated 5.8.2005 and, therefore, immediately thereafter the appellant could have filed an appeal in this regard challenging the aforesaid order. But unfortunately it came to be filed after a long delay. The review application, as already stated above, was also delayed by about 2 years and was dismissed on this ground also by the learned single Judge.
6. In the application seeking condensation of delay, an explanation is sought to be given explaining the delay for the period between 05.08.2005 till date of filing of the appeal, i.e, 3rd April, 2006. It is more or less a year. The explanation that is given is that after the dismissal of the review application, the appellant worked out a detailed study in consultation with the Legal Advisors and other senior departmental officers. In support of the said contention, explanations and reasons are given to the effect that on 02.09.2005 it was decided by the Deputy Chief Legal Advisor of the appellant that the order dated 5.8.2005 be challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal. The case file was sent to the Chief Legal Advisor on 7.9.2005 for his consent for filing the LPA. On 09.09.2005, the case file was sent to the Officer on Special Duty with the direction that Power of Attorney be executed in favor of panel lawyer. Officer on Special Duty(Lands) gave an opinion on 14.09.2005 with the advice that no appeal would lie against the order of dismissal of the said review application. The Senior Law Officer (Land Development) gave his opinion that a Special Leave Petition should be filed whereupon the file was sent back to the lawyer on 08.12.2005 showing that no SLP would lie. There is no explanation forthcoming for the delay of three months in the aforesaid process. The said panel lawyer again sent back the file to the appellant on 12.12.2005 with the advice that as per the latest amendment in the Delhi High court Rules, it is mandatory to file a Letters Patent Appeal before filing Special Leave Petition. Finally it was decided by the appellant that an LPA should be filed and the case file was again sent to the said panel lawyer on 20.03.2006 and thereafter the appeal came to be filed in April, 2006. The aforesaid explanation given is also found to be vague and lacking in material particulars. There is no explanation and particulars for delay of three months of the aforesaid nature.
7. On face of the statements made in the application, negligence and lack of due diligence is apparent on the face of the records. The statements made in the application do not prove any due diligence on the part of the officers of the appellant. The file was being sent from one desk to the other desk and no effort was made to get the matter expedited even despite the fact of knowing fully that the appeal is time barred under law of limitation. We find no reason to hold that there is sufficient cause on the part of the appellant in pursuing the appeal. The application seeking condensation of delay is, therefore, dismissed on that ground itself.
8. Even otherwise, on merit also, we find that there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The said fact of subletting was known to the appellant and informed by the appellant. The appellants were accepting the subletting charges being paid by the respondent. The appellant also gave time to the respondent to file an appropriate application for according permission to sublet the property. The appellant has also in clear terms told the respondent that they should pay the subletting charges and also should take appropriate steps for getting the tenant evicted. In terms of the aforesaid instructions and directions, the respondent has also taken necessary steps to get the tenant evicted which is established from the fact that a notice is served on the bank by the respondent directing them to vacate the aforesaid premises. Since the bank has failed to vacate the said premises, first notice of eviction/termination was issued and then a suit for possession was also filed. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, there is no question of interfering with the order passed by the learned single Judge directing for restoration of the lease in favor of the respondent on payment of the restoration charges. We hold that the same be restored in terms of order of the learned single Judge.
9. The appeal is disposed of in terms of aforesaid order. There shall be no order as to the costs.