Delhi High Court
Shri Trilok Chand Mittal vs Delhi Development Authority on 24 October, 2002
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. Rule.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner was registered in 1982 under the Self Financing Scheme and an allocation letter was issued on 6.12.1991 allocating a category II flat on the first floor in Block No. 8, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi at an estimated cost of Rs. 5,15,400/-. The petitioner paid the four Installments therein. On 20.4.1998 the petitioner informed the respondent of a change of address in its record. This letter was acknowledged by the respondent vide letter dated 13.5.1998 where a proof of change of address was demanded. However, the same was not submitted by the petitioner and it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that this was so since the petitioner had only changed the communication address though he continued to reside at the original address. On 30.6.98 a draw of lots was held and an allotment letter was issued on 9.10.98 allotting flat No. 84-F on the first floor in Sector 8, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi to the petitioner and making a net demand of Rs. 1,37,601/- in view of the cost of the flat being Rs. 6,71,068/- and taking into consideration the Installments already paid. The last date to make the payment was 6.2.99 in which case Rs. 1,41,041/- had to be paid and thereafter there was provision for automatic cancellation. The petitioner claims not to have received this letter but when he visited the office of respondent in February, 1999 he found out about the same and deposited the said amount along with further interest up to 27.2.1999. Thus there was a delay of 21 days from the last date of making payment after which there was automatic cancellation.
4. The allotment of the petitioner was restored of the said flat at the request of the petitioner but a fresh allotment letter was sent demanding a sum of Rs. 10,30,000/-. The petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed the present writ petition.
5. In the counter affidavit it is stated that since the petitioner failed to respond to the letter dated 13.5.1998 the allotment letter was sent at the original address and as the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount in terms of the fresh demand letter.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that firstly the letter was not sent at the new address and secondly at best there is delay of 21 days for which the petitioner has paid interest and deposited the amount on 27.2.99. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of R.K. Saxena v. DDA 90 (2001) DLT 752 (SC) to contend that once the payment is so received it is not open to the respondent to resile from the same. The said case also dealt with an allotment by the DDA made in which there was a delay in payment but the delayed payment was deposited with interest which was accepted. The High Court held that since the balance amount was deposited unilaterally after the expiry of the period though with interest, there was no legal tender of money in accordance with law. The Supreme Court held that the said view of the High Court could not be sustained and once the delayed payment and interest were accepted by the respondent there was deemed extension of time. The cancellation letter was also issued after the deposit of amount.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that there has to be some sanctity to the dates and contends that since the last date has expired there is no question of making payment after the said date.
8. I have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
9. In so far as the issue of the demand letter being issued to the earlier address is concerned, the own case of the petitioner is that he gave the new address only for the purpose of communication and he continued to reside at the old address. Not only this the petitioner did not respond to the letter of 13.5.2002 when the proof of change of address was demanded by the respondent. There could in fact have been no change of address since the petitioner had admittedly continued to reside at the original residence. Thus I am unable to agree with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the demand letter was not sent at the correct address.
10. In so far as the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that in view of the fact that the petitioner has paid the amount belatedly with up to date interest, and was thus entitled to allotment as per original rate, I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in R K Saxean's case (supra). The delay was only of 21 days and though the allotment letter provided for automatic cancellation, admittedly no cancellation letter was issued. The petitioner deposited the balance amount with up to dated interest on 27.2.1999 which was duly accepted by the respondent. In view thereof the petitioner cannot be now issued a fresh demand letter at different cost. The consequence in the facts and circumstances of the case would be that for this delay of 21 days for which the petitioner has paid interest to the respondents, respondents cannot increase the cost of the flat from Rs. 3,71,068/- to Rs. 10,30,000/- i.e., an increase of almost Rs. 3,70,000/-.
11. In view of the aforesaid the impugned letter dated 1.9.99 of the respondent is quashed and it is directed that in view of the payment already made by the petitioner in pursuance to the allotment cum demand letter dated 9.10.98 the petitioner is entitled to be handed over the possession of the flat on his completing the necessary formalities. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of 4 weeks from today. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12. Dismissed.
