Mrs.Nirmal Kishore vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 4544 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                          Judgment Delivered on: 09.11.2009

+                       LPA NO.141/2003

       MRS.NIRMAL KISHORE              ...........Appellant
           Through: Mr.Narender M. Sharma and Ms. Babli,
                Advocates.

                              Versus

       DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY               ...........Respondent
           Through: None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
        allowed to see the judgment?                            No.

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  No.

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
        Digest?                                        No.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated

07.11.2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by the

appellant as also the order dated 31.01.2003 dismissing

RA No.1243/2003 which sought a review of the order

dated 07.11.2002.

2. The grievance of the appellant before the learned

Single Judge was to the demand raised by DDA as per the

demand-cum-allotment letter issued in the name of the

appellant demanding payment of the first, second, third

and fourth installment for a flat at Sarita Vihar allotted to

the appellants. The second grievance was of interest

demanded in sum of Rs.47,799.67 while raising the

demand.

3. The demand-cum-allotment letter dated 13.03.1987

evidences the raising of the demand of the four

installments with retrospective dates as under:-

     Installment         Amount                    Due Date

     First               Rs.63,250/-               19.02.1984

     Second              Rs.50,600/-               01.12.1984

     Third               Rs.63,250/-               01.06.1985

     Fourth              Rs.50,600/-               31.01.1986

4. It was the case of the appellant that she applied

under the fourth self-financing Scheme 1981 for being

allotted a flat and as per the Scheme it was clearly told

that as and when a flat would be allotted to the appellant

she would be required to pay four installments spread

over six months each in respect of 90% of the tentative

cost of construction of the flat and the balance 10% would

be paid at the time of possession being offered and at

that time the final cost of construction would be indicated.

5. Thus, the appellant questioned the first four

installments being demanded in lump-sum. The appellant

also questioned the levy of interest on the four

installments on the ground that having raised the demand

for the first time under the demand-cum-allotment letter,

where was the question of interest to be paid, which

interest, as per the brochure was payable on belated

payment.

6. What had happened was that there were certain

flats available for allotment which had been constructed

by DDA and in respect thereof DDA invited applications

from the registrants of its pending schemes, clearly

indicating that in respect of the flats at Sarita Vihar, the

first four installments would have to be paid on allocation.

7. It was further indicated that in addition to the said

installments, interest @ 10% per annum will also be

payable w.e.f. the date on which flats in the scheme were

allotted in the first instance.

8. Thus, it was clear that those who applied to DDA in

response to the brochure under which existing registrants

could opt for flats which were already constructed, the

concept of self-financing became inapplicable and thus,

said registrants became liable to pay the first four

installments the moment a flat was allocated to them.

9. Faced with the aforesaid, learned counsel for the

appellant fairly concedes that the claim of the appellant

that DDA could not demand the first four installments in

lump-sum is incorrect and the decision of the learned

Single Judge to said extent is correct.

10. Thus, learned counsel urges the appeal, restricted to

the levy of interest in sum of Rs.47,799.67, interest being

charged @10% w.e.f. the due dates pertaining to the four

installments as noted hereinabove and the date of

demand.

11. We may note the language of the brochure under

which the existing registrants were given the option to

apply for allocation of flats at Sarita Vihar. Vide note 2 it

has been clearly indicated: in addition to the installments

based on the estimated costs, interest @10% per annum

will also be payable w.e.f. the date on which flats in the

scheme were allocated in the first instance.

12. Now, as far as the appellant is concerned, for the

first time, the flat in question was allocated in her name

as per demand-cum-allotment letter dated 13.03.1987.

We may note that there is a difference between allocation

and allotment. The former is to allocate the category in

which the applicant would be given a flat and the latter

i.e. allotment is the giving of a specific flat by number. In

the letter dated 13.03.1987, though referred to as an

allotment letter, what has been conveyed to the appellant

is that she would be allotted a category 3 flat in Sarita

Vihar, Pocket-A on the floor GR 2. No specific flat has

been earmarked. Thus, being a case of first allocation, the

only entitlement of DDA was to raise a lump-sum demand

for the first four installments and interest for the period

after the date of the allocation and not prior thereto.

13. Thus, we partially allow the appeal. The demand of

interest in the sum of Rs.47,799.67 is quashed. The

remaining demand is upheld. The writ petition filed by

the appellant shall be treated as having been allowed as

per the preceding part of the present para.

14. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE NOVEMBER 09, 2009 sb