Delhi High Court
Smt. Veena Mukhi vs D.D.A. on 6 September, 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 disposal.
3. The petitioner registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 for allotment of a MIG flat. The address given was of Alwar since at that time the husband of the petitioner who was in the Army was posted in the Madras Regiment.
4. The petitioner shifted residence in 1990 and 1993 first to Noida and to then to Delhi and gave last address as Flat No. 219, Sector-A, Pocket-C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The petitioner states that she visited office of the respondent sometimes in 1998 since she received no intimation about any allotment of flat and was surprised to know from the dealing assistant that a flat bearing No.62-A, Group-IV, Phase-II, Pocket-I, Kondli Gharoli was allotted to the petitioner in November, 1996 but the same was sent to the petitioner at the old address at Alwar. The petitioner made a representation dated 14th May, 1998 for issuance of the allotment-cum-demand letter since the same had been sent at the old address despite intimation by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the respondent refused to oblige and thus the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking allotment-cum-demand letter of the flat in question to be issued to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions and price as the original demand letter.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the factual position is more or less admitted. It is, however, stated that notice was issued in daily newspapers about the draw of lots. Further, it is stated that the letters sent by the petitioner for change of address dated 15th January, 1990 and 3rd August, 1993 were not in confirmity with the NPR Scheme since Condition 27 of the Scheme is stipulated as under:
"27. Depositors are advised to communicate changes in their address from time to time to the account officer (Housing) with a copy to Dy. Director(H-I) quoting their Deposit Receipt No. and the Registration No. with dates."
6. It is further stated that the application submitted by the petitioner contained following declaration duly signed by the petitioner.
"I, hereby further declare that I have carefully read and understood the terms and conditions of the registration and given to me along with this form and do hereby agree to abide by them."
7. It is thus stated that the letters sent for the change of the address were not in compliance of condition No.27 since the same were not marked to Dy. Director (H-I). An additional plea is also taken that the signatures of the petitioner on the application and the letter for change of address did not tally. It is also stated in the petition that the letter of allotment was not sent to the Alwar address but on the address c/o 99, APO which was one of the subsequent intimated changed address.
8. I have considered submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties.
9. It is now an undisputed position in law that once an allottee intimates a change of address and the respondent fails to record it and sends the allotment letter at an earlier address, the allottee can not be made to pay any additional amount and must be allotted the flat at the price stated in the allotment letter. The petitioner has enclosed with the writ petition orders passed in TRS Vardan v. D.D.A. 65(1997) DLT 333 and CW No. 1928/98 in Davindra Singh v. D.D.A. decided on 22/4/1998. This issue has also been considered by this Court in a recent judgment, taking into consideration the earlier judgments in CW No. 349/02, Nirmala Devi v. D.D.A. decided on 26/8/2002 in which directions have also been issued that a uniform practice should be followed in this behalf in terms of the judgments of this Court and the petitioners should not be compelled to come to Court to seek redressal of their grievance in such a situation.
10. The additional pleas raised by the respondent in this case, however, deserve to be considered. The first plea is based on the terms of the Scheme itself. Undoubtedly, the intimation was sent but was not marked to Dy. Director (H-I) in terms of condition 27 of the Scheme. This is a highly technical plea taken, especially taking into consideration the fact that in similar other cases, request for change of address are put in the file. Be that as it may, it will not make a difference in the present case in view of the fact that admittedly at least in 1998, the respondent had come to know about these facts relating to the change of address. It is also relevant to note that the respondent has not pleaded that the intimations sent by the petitioner were not placed on record but that the change of address was not noted.
11. The second plea is based on the difference in the signature between the application and the letters for change of address. On perusal and comparing the documents, there does appear to be some change in the signature. However, if that was the position, it was open to the respondent to have intimated the petitioner in this behalf and seek a clarification. This was not done.
12. The third plea relates to the fact that the allotment-cum-demand letter was not sent to Alwar but c/o 99, APO. This plea is of no avail since admittedly the allotment letter was not sent at the last address given by the petitioner.
13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in any case once intimation was received in 1998, the respondent should have woken up and taken necessary steps for allotment of the flat to the petitioner and at best could have charged some interest from the date of allotment till 1998. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner soon thereafter approached this Court by filing this writ petition on 11th June 1998.
14. I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Assuming that the petitioner failed to mark a letter to Dy. Director (H-I) and that the signature did not tally, still at lest in 1998, remedial action should have been taken by the respondent. In such a situation, the respondent could at best have charged interest on the amount demanded as per the allotment letter for the period 1996-98.
15. It is also relevant to note that in terms of interim order dated 12th June, 1998, the same flat which was allotted to the petitioner was kept reserved for the petitioner and thus, the flat is available for allotment.
16. The writ petition is thus allowed and the respondent is directed to issue an allotment-cum-demand letter in favor of the petitioner on the basis of the original cost of the flat along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of expiry of the initial period when the payment had to be made till 30.6.1998.
17. The needful be done within four weeks from today and on the petitioner depositing the amount and completing the formalities the possession of flat be handed over to the petitioner within four weeks.
18. Parties to bear their own costs.
C.M. No. 6729/98
19. No further orders are called in this application in view of the disposal of the writ petition. Application stands disposed of.
20. dusty.
