Sachdeve Educational Society (R) vs D.D.A.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1016 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The limited question for consideration in the present petitionarises from the fact that though on 12.3.93 Division Bench of this court had directed possession to be handed over to the petitioner of the property in question on payment of a further amount of Rs.9.75 lacs apart from the earlier payment of Rs.14 lacs the possession was not delivered. The payment of Rs.9.75 lacs was made on 23.4.1993. Only part possession was handed over to the petitioner on 13.3.95 and the complete possession was handed over on 27.1.1997.

2. The petitioner has impugned the demand letter dated 12.3.99 since the petitioner has been charged interest for balance payment but no credit on account of the interest has been given to the petitioner for the delay in handing over the possession. It may, however, be noted that the petitioner has not paid any amount against his further demand as per the allotment letter dated 12.3.99.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent there is recital about the previous litigation and the challenge by the petitioner. However, in the present case we are not concerned with the costs of the property in question over which there is now no dispute.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In my considered view it is not open to the respondent authority to recover the money and not deliver possession. If interest is charged from the allottee on belated payments then certainly the allottee is also entitled to interest at the same rate on the amount deposited by him for non-delivery of possession. The petitioner had already deposited the amount on 23.4.93. Taking a reasonable time into account the possession should have at least have been delivered by the end of June, 1993. The fact that part possession had been handed over to the petitioner is of no avail since part possession which was handed to the petitioner initially of 1.18 acres and the balance land of 0.82 acres was delivered only in January, 1997. This was on account of encroachments on land. I am thus of the considered view that the petitioner would be entitled to interest for the period from 1.7.93 to 30.12.96. It is also to be kept in mind that as a consequence of non-delivery of possession the petitioner has been deprived of the enjoyment of the property and has not been able to construct the property resulting in increase in cost of construction. It is, however, to be noted that the petitioner failed to make the payment even of the balance principal amount in terms of the letter dated 12.3.1999 and thus the interest would continue to run against the petitioner till the balance payment is made. In view of the aforesaid the impugned demand letter dated 12.3.99 is quashed and the respondent is directed to issue afresh demand letter with in four weeks calculating interest due from the petitioner for the further period on the unpaid amount till issue of demand letter and giving credit to the petitioner for the interest on the amount deposited by him at the same rate for the period from 1.7.93 to 31.12.96. The petitioner shall make the payment in terms of the demand letter within a period of four weeks of the receipt of the said letter.

5. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

6. In view of the disposal of the writ petition no further orders are required to be passed in the application. Application stands disposed of.