ALOK BAJAJ vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

-THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 30. 4. 2003 passed by the State Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. A-165/2003, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein.

THE relevant facts leading to the present revision petition are that the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant by profession at the threshold of his career got himself registered in the Second Self Financing Scheme Flats, 1985 floated by the respondent-DDA and deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000 with the DDA on 5. 9. 1985. The scheme contemplated to build commercial flats in various localities of Delhi and to hand over the possession of such flats within approximately three years from the date of registration by receiving payment of commercial flats in instalments. The scheme could not take off for several years and after a gap of about six years, vide communication dated 20. 12. 1991, DDA regretted about delay in allotment of a commercial flat to the petitioner and made an offer to the petitioner to apply for allotment of flats in certain localities like Janak Puri District Centre and Laxmi Nagar District Centre and also gave the option to the petitioner to take back the refund of the amount so deposited along with 7% interest. Petitioner accepted the offer and exercised the first option by indicating his preference for allotment of commercial flat. Petitioner heard nothing from the DDA uptil 31. 12. 1992 when the DDA issued another letter to the petitioner informing him that no specific project had been taken up under the scheme 1985 and thereafter offered the petitioner to opt for flats which were already under construction in Janakpuri District Centre and Laxmi Nagar District Centre which were expected to be ready for delivery of possession in about eight months'' time, i. e. by August 1993. It was mentioned in the said letter that those flats under construction were independent of the scheme of 1985. The estimated tentative price of flat in Laxmi Nagar District Centre was upto Rs. 14,839 per sq. metre and the petitioner exercised his option for the same. However, again there was a silence on the part of the DDA, so the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking allotment of a commercial flat as envisaged in the 1985 scheme by the DDA. The complaint was resisted by the respondent-DDA. During the pendency of the complaint the DDA issued a Demand Letter dated 28. 3. 2000 by which a payment of Rs. 29,94,565 was demanded towards 113. 01 sq. metre of commercial flat in Laxmi Nagar District Centre after adjusting a sum of Rs. 20,000 already deposited by the petitioner and further sum of Rs. 20,240 towards interest. Revised demand letter was issued for receiving the said amount in instalments. It may be noticed here that the payment asked for by the DDA was totally in contravention of the earlier offer made it as the price fixed was almost one and a half times more than the price proposed earlier. The petitioner found the said price exorbitant and thereafter indicated to the District Forum that he was not interested in the allotment of commercial flat and would rather prefer to get his amount refunded which was deposited by him along with interest. So the DDA indicated that they had no objection to refund the amount along with interest after deducting the cancellation charges, etc. , which amount according to the DDA came to Rs. 19,119. District Forum accordingly disposed of the complaint on the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission but without success. We have heard Mr. R. K. Nayyar, learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Aggarwal, Counsel for the respondent-DDA and have given our thoughtful consideration to their submissions.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged before us that the petitioner need to be adequately compensated for the default and deficiency in service on the part fo the DDA in not allotting a commercial flat to the petitioner in terms of the Second Self Financing Scheme, 1985 and thereafter trying to wriggle out of the obligations under the said scheme by making offer for allotment of commercial flat in alternative scheme at a very exorbitant price, which the petitioner could not afford to pay. Learned Counsel for the DDA has on the other hand refuted the contentions and stated that petitioner had himself cancelled the registration by not accepting the offer of allotment made to him and by paying the price of the said flat. We have considered this aspect in depth and on a consideration of the material obtaining on record, we must at once infer that floating of Second Self Financing Scheme, 1985 was not an earnest and sincere act on the part of the DDA because even after the expiry of more than 20 years, the said scheme did not take off and we are informed that the DDA after that have built so many commercial flats under various other schemes and have sold/allotted the same to several other persons at very high prices. The DDA must have received registration fee of Rs. 20,000 from thousands of registrants and the money so collected remained with the DDA throughout this period. The high-handedness of the DDA is apparent from their communications dated 15. 1. 1993 and 28. 3. 2000. In our opinion DDA cannot be allowed to enrich and thrive on the money of the registrants of flats even though it has itself failed to keep its promise and fulfil its obligation under the agreement/scheme.

IN our view the petitioner had opted out of the scheme for valid reasons because the 1985 scheme could not take off and, therefore, DDA is not justified in deducting any cancellation charges from the amount deposited by the petitioner because the fault lies with DDA. Now the question arises as to in what manner and to what extent the petitioner should be compensated. There is no denial of the position that the amount of Rs. 20,000 is lying with the respondent ever since 5. 9. 1985 and as on 28. 3. 2000. Respondent offered to give a credit of Rs. 20,240 as the interest amount which had accrued by that time on the amount deposited by the petitioner. Therefore, in our view the petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs. 40,240 as on 28. 3. 2000. Since no commercial flat was actually allotted to him for all these years, we are of the considered opinion that it would adequately meet the ends of justice if the respondent-DDA is called upon to pay interest @ 12% p. a. on the amount of Rs. 40,240 w. e. f. 1st April, 2000 till its realization. We do not propose to award any separate compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the DDA. However, we award litigation cost of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the petitioner against the respondent. The amount along with interest and costs as directed above shall be paid by the respondent-DDA to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. R. P. disposed of.