Partition Decree between co-lessees cannot split tenancy or bind the lessor without express consent.

The subject property (13, Main Road, West Patel Nagar) was a 99-year leasehold granted by the Union of India in 1956

In 1974, a decree declared the Hingorani and Tahilramani families as co-lessees with 50% undivided shares each

In 2006, the Land & Development Office (L&DO) cancelled the lease and ordered re-entry due to misuse

Subsequently, a 2008 partition decree between the families allocated specific portions of the superstructure but left the land undivided

The L&DO rejected the request in 2019 because the lease stood cancelled

The Hingoranis filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 7452/2019). The Single Judge allowed the petition, directing mutation, permitting independent alienation, and excluding the Hingoranis from misuse charges prior to 2018

The Tahilramanis and the Union of India appealed these orders

the court applied the Government Grants Act, 1895, specifically Sections 2 and 3, which stipulate that government grants take effect according to their tenor notwithstanding any inconsistent law

It relied on the principle of "indivisibility of lease," holding that a tenancy cannot be split without the lessor's express consent

The court also applied the Master Plan for Delhi 2021 (Clause 4.4.3), which prohibits the sub-division of residential plots

the principle that Article 226 is for public law remedies and cannot be used to bypass foundational administrative orders or adjudicate purely private contractual/factual disputes

The court reasoned that because the lease was a Government Grant, its terms (prohibiting sub-division) were paramount under the 1895 Act

The 2008 partition decree was merely an inter se arrangement for possession and could not create independent "fragmented" tenancies against the Union of India, who was not a party to the suit

the court found the writ petition fundamentally flawed because it sought the consequential relief of mutation while the primary order of lease cancellation (2006) remained unchallenged and valid

The court noted that mutation recognizes existing rights but cannot revive extinguished ones

Regarding misuse charges, the court held that the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by determining factual liability and apportioning debt between private parties, which are private law matters requiring civil trial rather than summary writ proceedings

a writ for mutation is not maintainable if the underlying lease cancellation is not challenged

inter se disputes over misuse charges are outside writ jurisdiction

The High Court set aside the Impugned Orders [p. 38]. ... The Court clarified that the L&DO may decide to revoke the cancellation upon payment of dues as per policy [p. 38] and relegated the parties to civil remedies for their inter se disputes [p. 38]. All appeals were disposed of accordingly