B.L. PATNI vs D.D.A.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Mr. B.L. Patni, who was working in a Senior Position in the Bank of India at the relevant time, purchased plot No. A3/133, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi in Public Auction from DDA for Rs. 3,36,627.50. Possession of the plot was not delivered to the said auction purchaser as the plot had not been demarcated. Ultimately the plot was demarcated and possession delivered on 1.11.1989 after nearly 23 months of the date of auction. The complainant filed complaint registered as C-15/90 which was decided by this Commission by order dated 24.1.1991. The complainant was awarded compensation of Rs. 65.000/- with interest @ 15% from the date of complaint till payment. DDA failed to comply with the order and the complainant was obliged to take out execution. The amount awarded by the Commission was paid in those proceedings.

THE complainant thereafter approached DDA for execution of the Lease Deed which was not done despite of continuous follow-up action on the part of the complainant. On 6.8.1992 a draft deed was sent to the complainant by DDA but the draft was defective in that the plot shown was incorrectly described in terms of its dimensions. THE site plan sent with the draft deed lease was also incorrect. THE complainant brought these defects in the draft deed to the notice of DDA who took a long time to rectify the same. THE complainant was keen to have the Lease Deed so that he could get the building plan sanctioned and construct a building with the help of interest free loan which was available from the employer Bank. Moreover, the amount of auction money which was more than Rs. 3.36 lacs odd was lying blocked and the complainant had no place of his own to reside. THE cost of construction was also escalating. With these aspects in view, and inaction on the part of the DDA, the complainant filed the present complaint on 24.2.1993 for a direction to the opposite party to execute the Lease Deed immediately and pay interest on the amount of auction money @ 20%, Rs. 5.00 lacs on account of escalation in the construction cost. Further compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- per month for renting suitable place for residence and Rs. 10,000/- as costs. In the written version filed by DDA, it was stated that the Draft Lease Deed had been issued on 13.5.1993 and the complainant was himself responsible for the delay as the Lease Deed had not been re-submitted duly stamped from the Collector of Stamps. It was denied that the complainant was entitled to any compensation. In the rejoinder, the complainant highlighted the fact that even though the earlier Case C-15/90 had been decided on 24.1.1991, the Draft Lease Deed was issued only on 13.5.1993 and received by the complainant on 24.5.1993 after the lapse of more than 27 months. THE Collector of Stamp took usual time and assessed the Stamp Duty to be paid which was accordingly deposited on 1.9.1993. THE Lease Deed duly stamped was returned by the office of the Collector of Stamp in the last week of September, 1993 and the same was re-submitted to DDA on 4.10.1993 against Receipt Serial No. 025973 dated 4.10.1993. THE Lease Deed was not received duly executed and only a receipt dated 24.10.1993 was hand delivered through one Mr. S.C. Sharma. THE Lease Deed duly executed had not been received until 24.2.1994 and it was got registered before the Sub-Registrar on 3.3.1994. THE difficulties of the complainant did not end there. In the Lease Deed which was executed in the circumstances stated above on 24.4.1994, Condition No. 3 required that the building shall be constructed after obtaining sanction of the building plan with necessary designs, plans and specifications from the concerned authority within a period of two years from the date of delivery of possession which was in the present case 1st December, 1989. This condition could not obviously be complied with as the Lease Deed which contained this condition was itself executed on 24.2.1994. It, therefore, became necessary for complainant to obtain extension in the period allowed for completion of construction in the terms of the Lease Deed. THE case of the complainant is that he approached the office of DDA for granting the extension but he was told that since the case was pending before the State Commission, further action on his request could be entertained only after the decision by the State Commission. In order to avoid further delay and embark upon an enquiry whether the complainant had, in fact, applied for extension of the period for construction, the complainant submitted another application on 23.3.1998. during the pendency of this complaint. A copy of the same was given to Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate who appeared for DDA on the relevant date. No action has been taken by DDA with regard to the grant of extension in time with the result that the complainant is unable to submit necessary building plans for sanction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In the meanwhile the complainant has been paying vacant land tax imposed by the MCD in this connection, he deposited Rs. 4,144/- on 5.1.1998. This includes penalty as well. The complainant retired from service on 30.6.1992 and he was deprived of the facility to get an interest free loan for making construction of a residential house.

The facts set out above speak for themselves. The complainant has been singularly unlucky vis-a-vis DDA and has been put to huge loss on account of delay at various stages of the case.

WE have heard the complainant who argued in person and Mr. K.K. Malviya, Advocate for respondent and have carefully gone through the records. The first question arising for consideration is whether the condition of completion of construction with necessary sanction building plan within two years from the date of delivery of possession i.e. 1.12.1989 when the Lease Deed itself was executed on 24.4.1994 can be possibly enforced. The obvious answer is in the negative and the only way to construe the said condition is that the period of two years should be counted from the date of execution and registration of the Lease Deed. In the present case, the Lease Deed was executed on 24.2.1994 and it was registered with the Sub-Registrar on 3.3.1994. Allowing two years period there from, the relevant date works out to 3.3.1996. There is no question of DDA charging extension charges for the period from 3.3.1994 to 3.3.1996 as the DDA itself was responsible for delay in execution of the Lease Deed. The complainant is willing to pay the extension charges for the period from 3.3.1996 till date according to the relevant rules/ orders. On this aspect of the case, we deem it fair and proper to fix a time limit for DDA to intimate the extension charges and to grant the extension within the time limit to be fixed in this behalf on the deposit of such charges by the complainant.

THIS brings us to the next important question with regard to the damages claimed by the complainant. To recapitualate, the complainant purchased the plot in auction held on 4.1.1988, possession of the plot was delivered after nearly 23 months on 1.12.1989. Normally one would expect that Lease Deed in favour of the auction purchaser would have been executed appropriate to the delivery of possession or at the time of delivery of possession. The Lease Deed was, in fact, executed nearly four years and 10 months later in February, 1994. The woes of the complainant were further prolonged by refusing extension in the period allowed for construction on the specious ground that the case was pending before the State Commission and the extension could not be granted till the decision thereon. It will be seen that the grant of extension and the case for execution of the Lease Deed and grant of damages had nothing to do with the grant of extension especially when the complainant was ready and willing to pay the extension charges prescribed by the DDA. In any case, the DDA should have at its own level granted extension in construction at the time of execution of the Lease Deed. We are constrained to observe that the officers dealing with this case from stage to stage have shown great insensitivity. No one seems to have thought of the plight of the complainant who deposited the sizable amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- odd in time stipulated in the terms and conditions of the auction held in 1988. It is not disputed that the complainant was entitled to obtain an interest free loan of a sizable amount of Rs. 5.00 to Rs. 7.00 lacs for building a house when he was in service. Because of the delay at various stages, the complainant retired on 30.6.1992 and he was deprived of the benefit of the interest-free loan. If the complainant had constructed his house in time he would have been spared the necessity to live in a rented house. The complainant states that he had to spend on account of rent @ Rs. 2,000/- per month.

THE complainant has been paying vacant land tax which would not have been payable if the construction had been made at the appropriate time. All that he was liable to pay in that situation was appropriate property tax.

IT is well known that cost of building material and labour had a steep rise during the years relevant for this case. The cost of construction has sky-rocketed. Not one redeeming feature could be brought to our notice in the facts and circumstances of this case as far as DDA is concerned. To summarise, the auction of the plot took place on 4.1.1988. The payment of the premium was made in time according to the terms and conditions of auction. Possession was delivered on 1.12.1989. Draft lease, which was evidently defective and did not describe the demised property correctly, was issued on 6.8.1989. The complainant returned the same without delay pointing out the defect. The corrected Draft Lease Deed was again issued on 13.5.1993 only when execution of the order passed in the earlier complaint was taken out. The complainant re-submitted the Lease Deed after getting it stamped from the Collector of Stamps and paying the necessary stamp duty on 4.10.1993 and the Lease Deed was executed on 24.2.1994. Extension for making construction was not given. The complainant was told that no action for extension could be taken as the case was pending before the State Commission. This plea was totally unjustified as pendency of the complaint before the State Commission presented no problem in granting extension on payment of charges prescribed in this behalf to enable the complainant to undertake the construction. In order to avoid further delay and at our suggestion a fresh application for the grant of extension on payment of charges was handed over to Counsel for DDA on 23.3.1998, but the extension is not forthcoming.

The factors which have resulted in huge loss to the complainant are that the money paid for purchase of lease-hold rights has remained blocked. The complainant was deprived of the facility of interest free loan which he had while being in service of the Bank. He incurred loss of rent. The cost of construction material and labour has escalated during these years. The DDA has been found to have caused un-explained and un- reasonable delay in taking various steps in connection with the lease-hold of the plot and there is no redeeming feature as far as the opposite party is concerned.

KEEPING in view the above mentioned factors we are of the view that a substantial amount of damages only can partly compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him. The complaint is allowed in the following terms : (1) Within two weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order the opposite party shall intimate in writing to the complainant as to the amount to be deposited as extension charges. The period on which extension charges shall be worked out shall be 3.3.1996 upto the date of issuing the intimation and for two years later from the date of intimation onwards to enable the complainant to complete the construction within that period. On the complainant depositing the extension charges and intimation to DDA in writing that he has deposited the amount, DDA shall grant extension within two weeks of such intimation. In the totality of facts and circumstances, the DDA shall pay Rs. 1 lac as compensation while issuing the extension. In case of default, the amount of compensation shall be recoverable in appropriate proceedings u /Sec. 27. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties. Complaint allowed.