Sqn. Ldr. B.M. Shukla vs Delhi Development Authority
2005 Latest Caselaw 1598 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Late Smt. Anima Debi, aunt of the petitioner was registered with the DDA under a housing Scheme floated by DDA. Entitlemmatured in the year 1990. At a draw of lots held, name of Smt. Anima Debi was included. Flat No.7, Pocket-4, Block-D, Sector-15, Rohini was allotted to her. Vide demand-cum-allotment letter having block dates 4.4.1090 and 27.4.1990, intimation of the allotment was issued to Smt. Anima Debi. Since the flat which was allotted was under the Hire Purchase Scheme, it was intimated to her that the disposable cost of the fat was Rs. 2,15,200/-. As per the terms of allotment, 25% of the disposable cost had to be paid cash down and the remaining had to be paid in installments. Giving benefit of the initial deposit made by Smt. Anima Debi and the interest accrued thereon, she was called upon to pay Rs. 40,072.09 by 27.5.1990. It was indicated to her that monthly installments in the sum of Rs. 2612.35 had to be paid by her effective from 10.6.1990 spread over 120 installments.

2. Well within the prescribed time, Smt. Anima Debi deposited 25% initial amount demanded. She deposited Rs. 40,073/- on 24.5.1990.

3. Having paid the sum of Rs. 40,073/-, late Smt. Anima Debi took no active steps to receive possession of the flat which was allotted to her. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is evident that the flat allotted to her was on the third floor. She had a knee problem and wanted a flat on the ground floor. Unfortunately, the date on which she exercised the said option has not been pleaded in the writ petition. However, Annexure R-1 filed with the counter affidavit of DDA shows that she had sought for allotment of a flat on the ground floor on 13.6.1990. What happened thereafter is unknown till the year 1997 for the reason, neither petitioner nor DDA has thrown any light on the issue.

4. We then have on record a letter written by Smt. Anima Debi to DDA on 5.2.1997 repeating her request for allotment of a flat on the ground floor, re-scheduling the payment schedule and waiver of penalty. A request which was not acceded to by DDA.

5. On being posted to Delhi, petitioner took up the cause of his aunt. He met the officers of DDA. On 17.4.1997, DDA calculated that 83 installments had become due and payable. Accordingly, Rs. 2,16,825.05 was held as payable on account of hire purchase installments which had fallen due. DDA determined interest on the outstanding amount in the sum of Rs. 1,36,599.78 calculating the same @ 18% per annum. The amount was not paid. DDA did not handover the possession as the petitioner's aunt had not come forward to take possession of the flat and had not paid the hire purchase installments. Ultimately, on 3.3.1998, petitioner's aunt sought transfer of registration in the name of the petitioner. On 14.10.1998, DDA transferred the allotment in the name of the petitioner.

6. An Amnesty Scheme was notified by DDA in the year 1998. As per the Amnesty Scheme, DDA reduced the interest payable on late payments from 18% per annum to 12% per annum. Under protest, petitioner paid the interest determined as aforesaid in the sum of Rs. 1,31,918/- together with outstanding installments of the hire purchase amount. He took possession of the flat and simultaneously sought refund of interest paid by him. Getting no redressal from DDA, stating the facts aforesaid, present petition was filed praying that interest paid by the petitioner be refunded.

7. Case of the petitioner is that DDA ought to have handed over possession of the flat to his aunt when she paid the initial 25% deposit in the year 1990. Having not done so, DDA was at fault and could not charge interest on the outstanding hire purchase installments as according to the petitioner, hire purchase installments had to be paid subject to delivery of possession of the flat. Per contra, stand of learned counsel for DDA is that after paying 25% sum demanded at the time of demand-cum-allotment letter being issued, Smt. Anima Debi had to come to the office of DDA. She had to sign the requisite documents and then only could possession be handed over. Counsel submitted that to prevent imposters from taking possession as per procedure followed, central office of DDA issued a direction to the Camp Office to handover possession to the allottee and verifies the signatures of the allottee on the documents submitted when possession is sought to be taken over. It is stated that Smt. Anima Debi never visited the office of DDA. It was further submitted that admittedly Smt. Anima Debi did not take possession of the flat for the reason, she wanted a flat on the ground floor. In a nutshell, stand of DDA is that it was a case of self-denial of taking possession and, therefore, interest had to be paid.

8. Facts on record clearly bring out the position that petitioner's aunt was disinclined to take possession of the flat which was allotted to her. Sitting in Bihar, she entered into correspondence with DDA. No doubt she paid Rs. 40,073/- within time but that by itself is neither here not there for the reason, she had to come forward to establish her identity and take possession of the flat. As far as the hire purchase installments are concerned, having spent money on the construction of the flat, DDA was entitled to receive back the capital with interest in installments. Repayment had to be w.e.f. 10.6.1990 as indicated in the demand-cum-allotment letter. Admittedly, hire purchase installments were not paid. DDA was obviously entitled to interest on belated payment.

9. I do not find any fault with DDA in not handing over possession of the flat which was allotted. It is a case of self-denial by petitioner's aunt. Petitioner cannot, therefore, draw any assistance from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court which was cited at the bar during arguments being the decision reported as 63 (1990) DLT 830, T.S.R. Vardan v. DDA. The said decision noted that DDA was at fault in issuing the demand-cum-allotment letter at a wrong address and was, therefore, held dis-entitled to any interest for late payment.

10. No case for ordering refund is made out. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

11. No costs.