Smt. Vipla Kapoor vs Delhi Development Authority
2001 Latest Caselaw 532 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J (Oral)

Rule.

1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to hand over possession of flat on ground floor in Block-B, Pocket-4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The petitioner also claimed interest @ 18% p.m. for the delayed period of handing over of possession. Writ petition had come up for admission on 11.10.1991, when notice to show cause was issued and orders were passed reserving one ground floor flat for the petitioner. Rule was issued on 11.11.1993, interim order was confirmed. Operation of Demand letter dated 26.8.92/5.10.92 was stayed till 15.3.1994. Liberty was also given to the petitioner to obtain possession, if he was able to arrange the funds. On 28.10.94, the petitioner expressed his willingness to pay the entire demanded amount subject to the condition that if the petitioner succeeds the excess amount shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest. The court considered this a fair offer and accepted the same. Petitioner was directed to make the payment within 4 weeks and possession was also directed to be given to the petitioner on completion of formalities. In the event, the respondents handed over possession of the flat to the petitioner on 5.1.1995, petitioner also paid the demanded amount of Rs.79,718/-(rupees seventy nine thousand seven hundred and eighteen).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that the demand in question had been stayed by the court vide its interim order dated 11.11.1993 and therefore no act of the court should prejudice a party and at least from 11.11.1993, petitioner should not be held liable to pay the interest. This submission is misconceived.

4. In the instance case, the petitioner of his own volition had made the payment of the entire demanded amount subsequently on the condition that if he was ultimately held entitled to refund, amount would be refunded to her together with interest.

5. It is settled principle, that interim order would merge into the final order. It is the final order that prevails. Question to be considered is whether the petitioner was liable to pay the interest as demanded. Admittedly, as regards the delay in construction, the petitioner has been given credit of interest payable on the deposit of the registration amount, in accordance with the policy of the DDA. Petitioner has thus received interest on his registration deposit for the delay entailed in completing the construction. By the same analogy and as per the terms on which allotment was made, the petitioner would be liable to pay interest on the delayed Installments. Petitioner would not be entitled to any further relief on the interest payable.

6. Writ petition stands disposed of.