Delhi Development Authority vs Smt. Shakuntala Katoch
2007 Latest Caselaw 1994 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. The only dispute which is required to be resolved in this appeal is the issue as to whether or not the respondent is required to pay interest on the cost of the flat @ 12% p.a. from 1.4.1991 to 31.3.2002 amounting to Rs.4,92,756/-.

2. The respondent is actually aggrieved by the demand notice issued by the Delhi Development Authority (for short the 'DDA') directing for payment for a sum of Rs.10,68,588/- towards the cost of a SFS flat allotted to her in Vasant Kunj on 1.4.1991. The break up of the cost of the flat as given by the DDA is given herein below:

  1.   Original cost of the flat                       :  Rs.  3,73,300/-
2.   API (Actual Period Interest) on 4 Installments   :  Rs.    74,776/-
     @ 10% plus 20% surcharge
     thereon
3.   Freehold charges (provisional)                  :  Rs.    43,336/-
4.   API (Actual Period Interest) on cost of flat @  :  Rs.  4,92,756/-
     12% from 1.4.91 to 31.3.2002
5.   Share money                                     :  Rs.     1,000/-
6.   Document charges                                :  Rs.        75/-
7.   Capitalised value of service charges            :  Rs.     8,685/-
     Total                                           :  Rs. 10,68,588/-


 

3. The respondent applied for allotment of a flat pursuant to which he was declared successful in draw of lots held sometime in the year 1991. The total cost of the flat at that stage was only Rs.3,73,300/- which was the prevailing cost of the flat in 1991. As it appears, and agreed to by the counsel appearing for the DDA, the file of the respondent was misplaced by the DDA which was subsequently reconstructed by the DDA themselves in 1996. But despite the aforesaid reconstruction of the file even in 1996 a demand-cum-allotment letter was issued by the DDA only on 27.9.1999 making demand of an amount of Rs.13,71,781/- as the cost of the flat. Since, according to the respondent, the DDA was trying to take advantage of their inaction, the respondent challenged the demand for payment of interest. The respondent approached the Lok Adalat which considered her version as also that of the DDA and on 27.4.2001 the Lok Adalat passed an order to the following effect:

Present: Smt. Shankuntla Katoch Along with her husband and Sh. B.M.Singh, Dy.Director (SFS), DDA ? Respondent.

Sh. B.M.Singh, Dy. Director (H) SFS states that the matter has been finalised by the Vice-Chairman and the DDA will not charge anything more the price of the land prevailing in the year 1991-92 which is agreeable to the petitioner and a demand letter will be issued within a month and accordingly the case is disposed off.

Justice J.D. Jain (Retd.) Presiding Officer Permanent Lok Adalat, DDA 27.4.2001.

4. After the aforesaid order of the Lok Adalat on 27.4.2001 the DDA issued a letter to the respondent on 7.3.2002 directing the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.10,67,838/- in terms of the decision of the competent authority for charging the cost of 1991-92 for the flat. The aforesaid demand letter was challenged by filing the writ petition in which the actual challenge was in respect of an amount of Rs.4,92,756/- being interest charged @ 12% p.a. from 1.4.1991 to 31.3.2002. The learned Single Judge considered the facts and circumstances of the case and held that before the Lok Adalat the DDA rightly took the decision and the stand that the prevailing cost as of the 1991-92 would be charged which was an amount of Rs.3,73,300/-. It was also held that the respondent was not responsible for the delay and that it is the appellant who was actually responsible for the delay caused as there was inaction on their part. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge quashed the levy of interest of an amount of Rs.4,92,756/- with a further direction to the DDA to issue a revised demand excluding the demand of the interest component. The said findings of the learned Single Judge are under challenge in this appeal on which we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. The issue raised by the DDA in the appeal filed is that the flat is being finally allotted to the respondent and, therefore, he is required to pay the cost of the flat at the rate prevalent in 1991-92 but along with interest that could be charged. Here is a case where the DDA themselves admitted before the Lok Adalat that they would be charging the cost of the flat for 1991-92. In that view of the matter there cannot be a change of the stand taken by the DDA before the Lok Adalat. Any stand taken contrary to the stand taken before the Lok Adalat would be barred by the principles of waiver. There is no dispute to the fact that the actual cost of the flat during the period 1991-92 would be Rs.3,73,300/-. All other ancillary charges which are liable to be paid by the respondent shall have to be paid by her in accordance with law. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid fact as well. What appears to be in dispute is the amount which is being charged by the appellant as interest for the period between 1991 to 2002 which is being charged @ 12% p.a.

6. We have minutely examined the records and on consideration thereof we find that after publicizing that the respondent was successful in a draw of lots held in 1991 there was total silence on the part of the appellant. No demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the respondent as is required under the law. The respondent made a number of representations but to no avail. It transpires that the appellant lost the records of the respondent which were reconstructed in 1996 but again a demand-cum-allotment letter was issued only in 1999. Thus at every stage there was lapse and default by the appellant-DDA. After prolonged silence and expiry of about 8 years demand-cum-allotment letter was issued in 1999. Even the said demand-cum-allotment letter issued in 1999 was admittedly incorrect and the demand made was exorbitant as price prevailing in 1999 was asked to be paid which was an admitted fact before the Lok Adalat where the appellant themselves stated that revised demand-cum-allotment letter would be issued charging and demanding the actual cost of the flat as on 1991-92. Consent order by the Lok Adalat was passed on 27.4.2001 and after a gap of about an year, letter dated 7.3.2002 by way of rectification was actually issued but contrary to the decision of the Lok Adalat, interest @ 12% amounting to Rs.4,92,756/- was charged. Therefore, it appears to us that the respondent was ready and willing to pay the actual cost but for some reason or the other the appellant was issuing incorrect and arbitrary demand-cum-allotment letter making exorbitant demands. In the absence of a correct demand-cum-allotment letter the respondent could not have made any payment towards the cost of the flat and, therefore, it is established that the respondent is not to be blamed in any manner for non-payment of the cost of the flat and other ancillary legal expenses.

7. We accordingly hold that the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing for deletion of demand of interest suffers from no infirmity. The order passed by the learned Single Judge should be complied with by the DDA as expeditiously as possible and without any further delay preferably within a period of two months from today.

8. We find no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.