DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Geeta Rani Goel

THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment and orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission by the Opposite Party in that Fora.

THE brief facts of the case are that the Delhi Development Authority-the petitioner in this case, had issued an allotment letter dated 22.12.1997 to the Respondent in response to her application for registration of a flat under the Janata Housing Registration Scheme 1996 DDA. She was offered a ready built flat No. 100-B, First Floor in Kondli Gharoli, New Delhi. The offer of allotment letter issued on 22.12.1997 - 31.12.1997 laid down the schedule for payments to be made by the Respondent along with stipulated dates and details of automatic cancellation in case of failure to do so. Respondent deposited the confirmation money of Rs. 10,000 on 16.10.1998 and agreed to pay the required money within the stipulated period vide letter which was received from her by DDA on 19.1.1998. On 12.5.1998 the Respondent through a Registered AD requested the petitioner to permit her to pay the remaining money amounting to Rs. 1,55,500 in four instalments over a period of two years. Vide letter dated 11.6.1998 the Petitioner rejected the request of the Respondent and advised her that she could make the payment with interest by taking loan from financial institutions for which 2-3 months time could be granted. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent did not respond to the letter. She was, therefore, issued a show cause notice on 17.6.1998, as to why the allotment should not be cancelled on account of breach of terms of allotment. On receiving no response to this show cause notice, the Respondent''s allotment was cancelled on 4.8.1998 as per the conditions of the allotment letter according to which the last date for payment on 30.5.1998 was over.

THE Respondent''s contention is that due to her own and her husband''s ill health she could not make the payments in time. It was because of this that she sent a letter through Registered AD on 12.5.1998 to the Petitioner asking time to make the payments in instalments over a two year period. In response to this request, the DDA gave her three months time till 30.8.1998 to make the payments with interest. Respondent immediately sent a letter of acceptance to the Petitioner Under Certificate of Posting (UPC) dated 18.6.1998 and intimated action to raise the money through loans to make the remaining payment. However, before she could complete the process she was shocked to receive a letter from the Petitioner dated 4.8.1998 that her allotment had been cancelled. She never received any show-cause notice prior to the letter of cancellation. Aggrieved by this arbitrary action she moved the District Forum to seeking the following relief: (i) Restoration of the flat in question; (ii) Compensation of Rs. 10,000 for harassment and cost of litigation.

THE District Forum vide order dated 16.10.2002 ruled in her favour and gave the following orders: (a) If the flat in question is still available its allotment be restored to the complainant on payment of the balance amount with interest till the date of this order. (b) If the flat in question is not available for allotment, same category flat in the area of Kondli Gharoli shall be allotted to the complainant and the price of the flat shall be as on the date of allotment. (c) If a similar category flat is not available in the area of Kondli Gharoli, such a flat be allotted to the complainant in any other area at the price as on the date of allotment. (d) The amount already paid by the complainant shall be adequate towards the payment of the flat with interest @ 9% per annum till the date of allotment.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission who also upheld the order of the District Forum. The Petitioner has therefore, filed the present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

WE heard the Counsels for both the parties on 22.7.2010.

COUNSEL for Respondent reiterated the facts as indicated in the statements and the averments made before the District Forum and submitted that the Fora below rightly accepted the Respondent''s evidence by not doubting her bona fide. On the other hand the cancellation of allotment by the Petitioner was both arbitrary and unjustified.

COUNSEL for Petitioner submitted that the learned District Forum erred in believing the Respondent on the basis of a letter purportedly sent by her under UPC as credible evidence and which was never received by the Petitioner. He cited a judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. E V @ Balasaheb, I (1994) CCR 102 (SC)=1994 (1) SCC 682, wherein it was inter alia ruled that a certificate of posting does not inspire confidence and is easy to procure. It was also observed that a letter sent through Registered Post to ensure delivery is cogent evidence of dispatch.

COUNSEL for Petitioner also cited a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Skyline Contractors (P) Ltd. and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, VII (2008) SLT 48=(2008) 8 SCC 265, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court held that a development agency is well within its right to cancel the allotment if apart from the initial payment the allottee fails to make any other deposit within the period stipulated in the allotment order. It was also argued by him that apart from this the Respondent failed to show any proof of her efforts to raise the required money through loans. Under these circumstances, it was prayed that the impugned order passed by the State Commission, Delhi and earlier by the District Forum being both against the law and facts of the case is not tenable and may be set aside.

WE have heard both the learned Counsel and have gone through the evidence on record.

IT is on record that the Respondent was informed vide letter dated 22.12.1997-31.12.1997 that she was declared successful for allotment of a flat under the Janata Housing Registration Scheme based on a draw held on 29.10.1997, in which it was also indicated that she had to pay an amount of Rs. 1,55,550.42 on or before 30.5.1998. In response the Respondent sent a letter which was received by the DDA on 19.1.1998 informing that she had deposited the acceptance money of Rs. 10,000 on 16.1.1998 and would also be making ''the payment of demanded amount''. However, she made no efforts either to contact the DDA or make any payment during the intervening months and subsequently sent a Registered AD letter as late as 12.5.1998 (i.e. just ahead 12 days before the final date of payment) seeking time to make the payment in instalments over a period of two years. While rejecting her request the DDA gave her a grace period of 2-3 months to pay the entire amount with interest. Thereafter, the Petitioner cancelled the allotment because, they had not heard from her. The Respondent''s contention that she had sent a letter under UPC as stated earlier has no evidentiary value as cited in the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. E V @ Balasaheb, 1994 (1) SCC 682 (supra). Therefore, it cannot be proof of her having written to the DDA as contended by her. Further no documentary and cogent proof was given by the Respondent at any stage that she had made any serious attempt to raise the loan to pay the amount of Rs. 1,55,550.42 which was due. On a query made by us, her Counsel informed that she had not made formal applications to any financial institution as she was taking the assistance of her relatives to raise the required amount.

TO sum up, it is very clear that the Respondent had totally failed to adhere to the conditions based on which the allotment was offered to her. Even her request seeking time to make payment in instalments was made more than five months after she had accepted the conditions of allotment. Her plea that she had agreed to make the payment during the grace period offered by DDA and had sent a letter under UPC has as stated earlier no evidentiary value. All these facts taken in their totality cast serious doubts on the veracity of the Respondent''s evidence as well as her bona fide in this case. On the other hand, taking into account the above facts and the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Skyline Contractors (P) Ltd. and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Case 265 (supra), the petitioner was fully justified in cancelling the allotment for violation of terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

KEEPING in view the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of District Forum which was upheld by the State Commission is not based on careful and judicious consideration of evidence, facts and relevant rules and is therefore, set aside. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Revision Petition allowed.