Delhi High Court
Smt. Sarla Rani vs Asst. Housing Commissioner & Ors. on 27 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 VAD Delhi 847
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J (Oral)
Rule.
With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.
1. Petitioner's deceased husband, Mr. Vishwa Nath Kapoor, was a member of PNB Staff Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Petitioner's husband died on 13.2.1973. It appears that after his death, petitioner was not interested in continuing with membership and addressed a communication (Annexure R-1) to the Secretary of the Society, stating that on account of family circumstances and her two minor children, she would not be in a position to continue with the membership. She requested that the amount deposited be returned to her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after this application, the petitioner did not complete any formality for withdrawal and her membership would continue. The request was not acted upon by the Society.
2. It is the petitioner's case that thereafter the respondent/Society vide letter dated 30.5.1977, requested the petitioner to submit the affidavit, as per the proforma' attached, so that the transfer of membership in his favor could be completed and the case sent to the Assistant Housing Commissioner for scrutiny. Petitioner also places reliance on communication received from the Society, wherein, she was being treated as a member. Vide a letter dated 21.3.1980, the respondent/Society gave the statement of account and called upon the petitioner to pay the balance sum of Rs. 4161.60 paise as due. It is the petitioner's case that the said amount was paid on 8.8.1980.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner had duly paid the price and had complied with the requirements for transfer of membership. She received no communication from the respondent/Society. Learned counsel urges that petitioner being a widow, with two minor children, living in Ludhiana was unable to personally follow up the matter. Petitioner also complained vide letter dated 10.5.1994, against non-allotment of plot to the society and vide letter dated 5.9.1995 to the Assistant Housing Commissioner.
4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent, Mr. Rakesh Munjal, refutes the submissions of petitioner. He submits that petitioner had failed to comply with the requirement for transfer. She failed to submit the requisite documents. Hence, the transfer of her husband's share in her favor could not be completed. He submits that on 9.2.1981, petitioner was requested to submit a fresh affidavit. It is stated that there was no response from the petitioner. Thereafter, there was a communication of June, 1982, though addressed to the deceased husband as also petitioner, stating that the affidavit was defective. Request for fresh affidavit was made but to no avail. Besides this, learned counsel for the respondent urges that the petitioner had been totally negligent and ignored the request for furnishing affidavit. Petitioner did not respond or follow up the matter for extended period from 1980 to 1989 and again from 1990 to 1994. He also submits that the present writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the alternate remedy available under Rule 35(7) of the Delhi co-operative Rules. Learned senior counsel for the respondent has also produced the original records in Court. Learned counsel further submits that all the plots have already been allotted as far back as the year 1989-90 and there is not plot available.
Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and records, I find that this i an unfortunate case, where the petitioner on account of family circumstances, could not diligently pursue the transfer of membership, even though she had paid the development charges, as demanded. Petitioner has also approached the Court at a belated stage, when all the plots had already been allotted and there is no plot available that could be considered for allotment to the petitioner. I also find that the Society's lack of response to some of the communications of the petitioner leaves much to be desired. This is a fit case, where the petitioner, at least, deserves to have her money returned to her together with interest. Keeping in mind the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that though the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in view of the factors, enumerated earlier, the amount paid by petitioner towards the plot be returned to her with interest at 16 per cent per annum, from the date of last payment. Ordered accordingly.
5.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
