Letters of Administration do not stop lease transfer scrutiny or recovery of unearned increase under transfer covenants.

Grant of Letters of Administration does not, by itself, bar a lessor from enforcing lease restrictions on transfer or from examining whether a purported testamentary transfer is a transfer in breach of the lease. Where the lease permits recovery of 50% of the unearned increase on transfer and requires notice on devolution by death, the authority may scrutinise the transaction and insist on compliance with its policy and covenants. A refund claim for unearned increase paid under the earlier order fails once the demand is sustained, because the refund basis disappears.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Delhi Development Authority could question the real nature of the alleged testamentary transfer and demand 50% of the unearned increase despite the grant of Letters of Administration. (ii) Whether the respondent was entitled to refund of the unearned increase paid pursuant to the earlier order.

Issue (i): Whether the Delhi Development Authority could question the real nature of the alleged testamentary transfer and demand 50% of the unearned increase despite the grant of Letters of Administration.

Analysis: The lease deed restricted transfer of the commercial plot without prior written consent and specifically enabled recovery of 50% of the unearned increase in the event of transfer. Clause 8 also required notice where title devolved on death. The Authority's policy guidelines further contemplated scrutiny of transfers based on a will in favour of persons outside the blood relation and permitted insistence on unearned increase. Grant of Letters of Administration only establishes authority to administer the estate and does not confer title or prevent inquiry into whether a transaction styled as a will is in substance a sale or transfer in violation of the lease conditions. The Authority, being bound to act within its statutory objects, could therefore enforce the lease terms and policy.

Conclusion: The demand for 50% of the unearned increase was lawful and the High Court's contrary view was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was entitled to refund of the unearned increase paid pursuant to the earlier order.

Analysis: The claim for refund depended entirely on the success of the challenge to the demand raised in the first appeal. Once the demand was upheld and the earlier judgment was set aside, the basis for refund disappeared.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to refund.

Final Conclusion: The judgment under challenge was set aside, the demand of unearned increase was sustained, and the connected refund claim failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Grant of Letters of Administration does not preclude a lessor from enforcing contractual transfer restrictions or from examining whether a purported testamentary transfer is a transfer in breach of the lease conditions; title and compliance with lease covenants remain open to dispute.

---