R. Balamma vs Delhi Administration And Ors.
1990 Latest Caselaw 94 Del

JUDGMENT

Charanjit Talwar, J.

(1) The petitioner, Smt R, Balamma, applied for a flat under the Self Financing Scheme to the Delhi Development Authority on 10th August, 1982 and deposited Rs. 10,000.00 vide challan No. 40090. This application, it appears, was misplaced and she made a fresh application on 23rd May, 1985. It appears that the petitioner came to know that she was being offered a flat in the area of Madipur, in North District. She represented in a public hearing to the Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority on 31st January, 1986 to change the allotment, to South Delhi in lieu of the flat being allotted to her in North Delhi. The Vice Chairman agreed to the request and directed the Delhi Development Authority to allot the petitioner a flat in Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj. New Delhi. A letter dated 6th of June, 1986 to that effect was issued to the petitioner by the Delhi Development Authority. Consequent to that letter, on 16th July, 1986 the petitioner took part in draw of lot and was allotted a flat No. 685, Sector-A, Kishan "YOU will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% for the first month and 18% p.a. for the subsequent months".

Thereafter in paragraph 2, the details of the cost of title flat and other charges have been mentioned and after deducting the amount of Rs. 10,000.00 , which the petitioner had paid, the total has been shown Rs 1.77,646.50.

(2) In the meanwhile, on 18th June, 1986, the petitioner received a letter of allotment in respect of a flat situate at Madipur, in North Delhi. On 23rd June, 1986, the petitioner informed the Delhi Development Authority that as she had been promised a flat in South Delhi in lieu of the flat at Madipur, the letter of 18th June, 1986 be ignored.

(3) The above facts averred in the petition stand admitted.

(4) The petitioner's case is that she deposited Rs.l,20,000.00 on 6th September, 1986 i.e. within a month of the date of demand. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited Rs. 40.000.00 on 24th September, 1986 i.e. within 30 days of 7th September, 1986. Therefore, on this amount she was liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p. a. Another amount of Rs.12.000.00 was paid on 11th April, 1987. On this amount as well on the balance as per the letter dated the 8th August, 1986, she was liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The calculations have been worked out in Annexure-P.20, which is a representation by the petitioner.

(5) On 14th July, 1987, the petitioner vide Annexure-P.10 was inform ed that it was obligatory on her part to pay the amount of Rs.5,646.50 towards final .Installment. by 8th September, 1986. She was asked to deposit the said amount, failing which her allotment was liable to he cancelled. The petitioner paid this amount of Rs. 5,646.50 on 29th July, 1987 i.e. within 15 days of the demand. This is also an admitted fact.

(6) It appears that the respondents are not handing over the possession of the flat in Vasant Kunj to the petitioner herein, because they are of the view that the petitioner has to pay Rs. 48,911.65 on account of interest on late payments. The amount has been calculated and the details given by them in a letter dated 14th June, 1989, which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-P. 19. It is obvious that the amount calculated by the respondents is towards the cost and other charges of the flat in Madipur, which as we have noticed, it is being admitted was never allotted to the petitioner herein. The cost of that flat has been shown in Annexure-P-4. i.e. the letter dated the 18th June, 1986 informing the petitioner that she has been allotted a flat in North Delhi. As we have noticed, the petitioner on her own initiative vide letter of 23rd June, 1986 informed the Delhi Development Authority that on the letter dated 6th June, 1986, no action is required to be taken in view of the fact that a decision had been taken to allot to her another flat in South Delhi. The respondents, in our view, have not at all applied their mind while issuing this letter of 14th June, 1989. We may note that after receiving this letter, the petitioner vide her detailed representation dated the 20th July, 1989 brought the above facts to the notice of the Housing Commissioner, who, however, rejected the representation. The petitioner further deposited Rs. 10.000.00 under protest on 13th January, J988 although as per her calculations given in Annexure-P.20 (letter dated 20th July, 1989) the amount at the most due on account of interest against her was Rs. 2.380.41.

(7) There is no explanation forthcoming as to why and how the outstanding has been worked out against the petitioner qua the flat situate at Madipur. Mr. jaggis contention is that whatever may have been the outstanding shown in the letter of 14th July, 1987, as per paragraph 3 of Annexure-P.6, the cost of construction of that flat at the lime of initial release was Rs. 2,36,300.00 and that is how the balance in the letter dated the 14th June 1989 was worked out to be Rs. 48,911.65. We do not agree. The submission of Mr. Jaggi runs counter to the admission of title respondents in their counter affidavit. In paragraph 7 of the return, the respondents averred :- "THAT the contents of para-7 of the petition arc admitted to the extent tliat by letter dated 8th August, 1986, the allotment of flat No. 685, Sector-A Kishangarh. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was conveyed to title petitioner. It is further admitted that the petitioner/allottee was asked to pay the total cost of Rs. 1.77,646.50 paise within 30 days of the issuance of the letter failing which interest would be charged at 12% per annum for the first month and l8th% per annum for the subsequent months on the unpaid amount".

(8) In reply to paragraph 10 of the petition wherein the petitioner had averred that on 29th July, 1987 the petitioner deposited Rs. 5,646.50 towards full and final settlement of the cost of the flat, the respondents submitted as under:    "THAT the contents of para-10 of the petition are admitted."   

(9) It seems that the respondents have all along been insisting that the petitioner ought to pay the difference of the cost of construction between the flat in Madipur and the flat of the Vasant Kunj.   

(10) We hold that title entire amount towards the cost of flat No. 6S5, Sector-A, Kishan Garli, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, which allotted to the petitioner has been paid by her. It is clear from the documents, which have been annexed by the parties, that even the interest due as per letter dated 14th July, 1987 has been paid.   

(11) We allow the petition with costs and make the rule absolute. The respondents are directed to hand over the vacant possession of flat No. 685, Sector-A, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to the petitioner herein within 10 days. The impugned demand notices are quashed.