Raj Kumari Chopra vs Delhi Development Authority
1989 Latest Caselaw 87 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) The challenge in this writ petition is to the non-handing over of a flat had been allotted to the petitioner.

(3) Briefly stated, the facts are that the son of the petitioner had registered himself for a Mig flat with the respondent. An application was filed and the Dda transferred the registration to the petitioner's name. It appears that another application was filed for conversion of registration from Mig to Sfs category. By letter dated 13th June. 1985 the petitioner was informed that her request has been granted "for conversion of registration from Mig to SFS-IV under Cat-11." It was. however, stipulated that the petitioner would be treated en bloc junior to the persons who were already registered under SFS-IV.

(4) By a letter dated 10th June, 1986 the petitioner was informed that she should pay 90% of the estimated costs of Rs. 2,37,500 by Installments. It is not in dispute that all the Installments were paid in time. Thereafter, draw of lots took place and the petitioner was informed by the letter dated 13th January, 1988 that she had been allotted a flat on the third floor in Rajouri Garden. She was required to the pay the fifth and final Installment of Rs. 25,176.05. This amount was deposited on 19th January, 1988 and the respondent was informed about the same. Possession of the flat was not handed over and the petitioner wrote a letter asking for the same which was followed by a legal notice. The flat which was allotted to the petitioner, according to the draw of lots, was flat No. 152 in Rajouri Garden. When no response was received the present writ petition was filed. Show cause notice was issued and in the reply the respondent has, for the first time, stated that the petitioner was allowed conversion from Mig to Sfs Scheme V and not to Sfs Scheme Iv and it was by mistake that in the letter dated 13th June. 1985 there was a mention made of Scheme IV. It is further stated in the reply that as the allotment had been made to her under a mislake, the allotment was liable to be cancelled.

(5) In our opinion, there is no valid reason as to why possession of the flat which has been allotted to the petitioner should not be handed over. Admittedly, the petitioner had paid the amount demanded from her. Assuming for the sake of argument that in letter dated 13th June,1985 it was mistakenly said that the conversion has been to Scheme Iv, the respondent persisted with the alleged mistake and treated her as belonging to Scheme Iv and drew the lots, allotted a flat to her and demanded full price of the flat on the basis that she was an allottee to Scheme IV. After a period of four years the respondent has now turned around and contended in the Court for the first time that she was not in fact eligible for allotment in Scheme IV. In our opinion, the principles of promissory estoppel are clearly applicable to the present case. The respondent in the aforesaid letter dated 13th June, 1985 had clearly stated that the petitioner has been allowed conversion to Scheme Iv, Thereafter, she was informed about allotment ol the flat and at the behest of the respondent the petitioner altered her position to her detriment and paid full price of the flat. It is contended by Shri Jaggi that there was a misrepresentation by the petitioner in as much as that she did not enclose the photostat copy of the registration certificate or the FDR. We do not find any document on record requiring the petitioner, at any point of time prior to 13th June, 1985, to furnish either of these two documents. We find no justification for the respondent in not handing over the possession of the flat which has been allotted to the petitioner after having received the consideration in respect therefore.

(6) Before parting we may notice that on 24th October, counsel for the petitioner had very fairly conceded that without going into the merits of the case the petitioner would be willing to accept a flat in Sfs Scheme V in the same locality.

(7) The respondent is not even willing to give an assurance in this Court, and we have been informed by Shri Jaggi today that the respondent required the petitioner to apply for allotment in Sfs Scheme V. However, no assurance is forthcoming as to which particular flat, if any, will be allotted to the petitioner. We have no doubt that the conduct of the respondent is most unfair and it will be inequitous to require the petitioner to once again run from pillar to post.

(8) In the view of the foregoing, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondent to hand over to the petitioner vacant possession of Flat No. 152, Category Ii in Third Floor in Rajouri Garden, Pocket Goi Press, Delhi within four weeks from today.

(9) The parties to bear their own costs.