JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. The appellant, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/order passed
by learned Single Judge of this Court dated 10.12.1997 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.
520 of 1997, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. The appellant herein in the writ petition
inter alia prayed for a direction upon the respondents to convert the mode of payment
from cash down to hire purchase basis. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said
prayer had not bene allowed.
2. The fact of the matter is as follows:-
3. The appellant herein applied for and got himself registered for allotment
of M.I.G. flat in Rohini under a scheme floated by Delhi Development Authority, i.e., the
respondent known as ‘Ambedkar Awas Yojna – 1989’. He made an initial deposit of
Rs. 12,200/- and he was allotted a flat in Section 24, Pocket 24, Rohini in terms of a draw
held on 07.08.1996. A letter of allotment-cum-demand letter block dated 01.11.1996-09.11.1996
had bene sent to him therein a demand for a sum of Rs. 6,15,146.25 was made
whereupon he deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/-.
4. However, he made a representation dated 09.12.1996 to the second
respondent, i.e., Deputy Director (NP) H., for conversion of mode of payment from cash
down to hire-purchase basis.
5. The learned Single Judge having regard to the decision of this Court in K. Bhattacharjee v. DDA and V.G. Duggal v. DDA
and further having regard tot eh concession made to
the petitioner came to the conclusion that transactions being contractual and as the
payment of cost of the flat cannot be deferred till the basic facilities and amenities are
made available by the DDA, dismissed the writ petition.
6. The learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioner had restricted his
grievance with regard to the mode of payment of the disposal price the flat.
7. The appellant herein, who has appeared in person, has inter alia submitted
that he may be permitted to pay the demanded amount in Installments and merely
confined his arguments to this aspect alone. He has also relied upon a decision of the
Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Sheelawanti and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority,
.
8. It is not in dispute that the scheme adopted by the DDA is that 50% of the
allotment would be made on hire-purchase basis and the rest would be on cash down
basis. As the allotment is made on a draw of lots, things remain uncertain, as who would
be allotted flat on cash-down basis and who would be on hire-purchase basis is not
known.
9. During the pendency of this LPA, the appellant had been made a co-registrant.
10. The short question, which arises for consideration, is as to whether this
Court should issue a direction upon the respondent to accept rest of the payment in
Installments that too without payment of any interest.
11. The allotment had bene made in the year 1996. The appellant herein
admittedly has not paid the entire amount. It is not in dispute that in view of the terms
and conditions of the allotment, interest is payable.
12. The appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal inter alia has also prayed that
‘he be allowed to exercise to accept the allotment or apply for refund of amount
with interest from the respondents’. Thus, the appellant in the case of claiming for refund
has prayed for interest.
13. It, therefore, in our opinion, has rightly been contended by Ms. Sangeeta
Chandra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the Court
should not direct that no interest should be charged from the appellant herein. The
learned counsel submitted that the DDA constructs the flats and makes allotment on ‘no
profit no loss’ basis.
14. In Sheelawanti’s case (Supra) , the Full Bench of this Court although
directed DDA not to charge interest on the amount from the date of judgment or from the
date of filing of the writ petition, which even is later up to 31.03.1995, yet no law has
been laid down therefore. The Court merely exercised discretion having regard to the fact
that in view of the decision of Ashok Kumar Behl v. Union of India reported in AIR
1994 Delhi 149 , which was given on its own facts, the petitioner might have been misled
to approach this Court seeking some relief, although the same was not available to them.
In the instant case, such is not the position.
15. Even therein, the Court had directed that in the event the petitioners fail to
make payment in terms of the demand letter on or before 31.03.1995, the DDA will be at
liberty to take action in accordance with the terms and conditions of allotment.
16. However, the appellant herein has not made payment for more than 5
years now. His son’s name has also been made a co-registrant, as noticed hereinbefore,
in terms of the directions of this Court.
17. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this Court cannot
issue a direction as has bene prayed for. However, this Order shall not preclude the
appellant herein from filing an application before the appropriate authority of the DDA,
who may pass an order having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
This appeal is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.