Subsequent internal office orders cannot override express terms of a concluded lease deed.

The petitioner was allotted a Group Housing plot in Sector 62, NOIDA, via an allotment letter dated 19.05.2001

Clause 3 of the allotment letter allowed for either annual lease rent or a one-time payment equivalent to 11 years' rent at the time of lease deed execution

The petitioner deposited ₹5,56,700 on 08.01.2002 and ₹55,67,000 on 21.02.2002, totaling ₹61,23,700 (11 years' rent) prior to executing the lease deed on 28.02.2002

Clause III(a) of the lease deed explicitly recorded that the lessee had made full payment of the one-time lease rent

However, in 2006, NOIDA (the Authority) issued a demand notice for ₹29,22,675, claiming the initial payments were not made in "one go" and that the first installment was adjusted as yearly rent, leaving a balance for the one-time settlement

The petitioner paid this amount under protest to obtain a ‘No Dues Certificate’ and subsequently filed this writ for a refund

1. Whether the amounts deposited by the petitioner on 08.01.2002 and 21.02.2001 can be treated as a one-time lease rent deposit or not?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the ₹29,22,675 deposited under protest on 28.06.2006?

Terms of a concluded contract must be strictly read and natural meanings assigned without external aids unless ambiguous, as established in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal

The principle in Nabha Power v. Punjab SPCL, which cautions against reading "implied terms" into professional commercial contracts

The principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and "good administration" under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, requiring administrative decisions to be consistent and predictable

The Court observed that the allotment letter and the lease deed are the governing documents

Clause 3 of the allotment letter provided a one-time payment option but did not stipulate that it must be paid in a single "lump sum" transaction; it only required payment "at the time of execution"

The Authority’s own lease deed, executed after receiving both installments, categorically admitted that "full payment of... one-time lease rent" had been made

The Court rejected the Authority’s reliance on internal office orders from 1998 and 2000, noting they were never part of the signed contract and cannot override express contractual terms

An RTI response from the Authority’s own Chief Finance Officer admitted that the two payments totaled the required 11-year amount, with only a small fractional balance of ₹1,39,175 due for the period between possession and the start of the financial year

The demand for ₹29,22,675 was found to be arbitrary and fallacious as it ignored the Authority’s own records and contractual admissions

The final holding directed the Authority to refund the ₹29,22,675 deposited under protest, subject to a deduction of ₹1,39,175 (the actual lease rent due for the interim period 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002)

The Authority was ordered to pay the balance within three months, failing which 6% interest per annum would apply. The writ petition was partially allowed