Leasehold-to-freehold conversion policy excludes disinvested hotel property absent arbitrariness or discriminatory treatment.

A disinvested hotel property was held not to fall within the conversion policy for leasehold-to-freehold conversion because the policy applied only to categories expressly covered by its terms. Commercial and mixed land use properties were eligible only where ownership rights had already been conferred, and the petitioner's lease was materially different from the leases ordinarily covered by the scheme in consideration, security deposit and contractual terms. The Delhi HC accepted that the authority could reasonably exclude a distinct class where there was no arbitrariness or illegal discrimination, and the refusal of conversion was upheld as neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to conversion of the disinvested hotel property from leasehold to freehold under the conversion policy, and whether refusal of conversion was arbitrary or discriminatory.

Analysis: The policy was construed as extending only to the categories expressly covered by it. Commercial and mixed land use properties were eligible only where ownership rights had been conferred, and the petitioner's disinvested hotel was treated as a distinct category not brought within the policy. The Court also noted material differences between the petitioner's lease and the leases ordinarily covered by the scheme, including the nature of consideration, security deposit, and contractual terms. In such matters, the authority had discretion to maintain or exclude a class on a reasonable basis, and judicial interference was not warranted in the absence of arbitrariness or illegal discrimination.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to conversion from leasehold to freehold, and the refusal to grant conversion was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

---