DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs RAJINDER SINGH

BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that flat No. 258-A, Pocket M&N, Phase 1, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi was allotted to one Sri Ram as a result of draw held on 29.3.86 under the Janta Category. He was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,756.62 by a specified date and also fulfil certain formalities. He defaulted in making the payment and the allotment in his favour was cancelled. The said flat was, however, allotted to Rajinder Singh, respondent herein, in April ''87. Sri Ram aforesaid filed a Civil Suit sometimes in 1986 challenging the cancellation of allotment in his favour and the Civil Suit ordered the parties including the DDA to maintain status quo with regard to possession. Ultimately, the said Civil Suit was dismissed. After the dismissal of the suit, the case for delivery of possession of the flat to the said Rajinder Singh was taken up and possession was delivered on 3.12.90. Rajinder Singh filed a complaint before District Forum-II and his grievance was that he had made the payment of Rs. 37,683.10 on 16.6.87 and there was delay in delivery of possession till 3.12.90. According to him this constituted deficiency in the part of DDA and he was entitled to be. compensated by payment of interest. The plea of the DDA before the District Forum was that in view of the injuriction granted by the Civil Court it was beyond its powers to deliver possession and soon after the dismissal of the suit the case was processed and possession delivered to the complainant. The District Forum observed that the DDA should not have received payment of the disposal price from the complainant, in case it was unable to deliver possession within a reasonable time. In the alternative, the DDA might have offered an alternative flat so that the complainant was not made to suffer for a long period. It was also noted that the complainant had raised a loan from his employer and all he was asking was payment of interest which he was himself paying to the employer @ 12% p.a. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed and DDA was directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from 1.7.87 till date of delivery of possession besides Rs. 500/as costs. Aggrieved by the order, the DDA has preferred this appeal.

WE have heard Mr. H.C. Juneja, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rajinder Singh, respondent who argued in person. WE have also carefully gone through the records including the records maintained by the DDA with regard to the allotment in favour of Sri Ram as well as Rajinder Singh. The contention of Mr. Juneja is two-fold. Firstly, it was beyond the powers of the DDA to deliver possession in view of the injunction order of the Civil Court. The second part of the argument is that in the facts and circumstances it was not on account of any negligence but for reasons beyond its control that possession could not be delivered. He emphasised that it is only on account of deficiency coupled with negligency that DDA was liable to compensate the person who had hired the services for considerations. The contention of Mr. Rajinder Singh, on the other hand, is that for no fault of his the delivery of possession was delayed for a period of three years five months and 16 days. He wrote several letters to the DDA as to why possession was not being delivered and he failed to elicit any reply. In order to avoid cancellation he had incurred a loan from his employer and was paying interest on the amount of loan. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective submissions.

Unfortunately, only a small part of the Civil Court record in the form of copies of certain applications, summons issued from the Court from time-to-time etc. are available on the files produced before us. It is, however, clear that in 1986 the previous allottee Sri Ram filed a Civil Suit in which after report of Local Commission a temporary injunction was granted by the Civil Court directing the parties to maintain status quo apparently with regard to possession of the flat. The complainant has not produced on record the date on which the Civil Suit was ultimately dismissed. This was necessary in order to show that inspite of dismissal of the Civil Suit the DDA delayed delivery of possession. No such case was built up by the complainant. The stand of DDA, on the other hand, is that without any unreasonable delay after the dismissal of the suit the case for delivery of possession to the complainant was processed and possession delivered to him as already stated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold firstly, that the delay in the delivery of possession was on account of the stay order granted by the Civil Court and it was beyond the control of DDA to deliver possession in spite of stay order. We are further of the view that the delay in delivery of possession was on account of stay order of the Civil Court and it was not on account of negligence on the part of the DDA. In our view, therefore, the aforesaid delay did not constitute deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled to any interest on the amount deposited by him.

WITH regard to the observations of the District Forum that if the DDA was not in a position to deliver possession, it should not have received the disposal price from the complainant or in the alternative the DDA should have offered an alternative flat to the complainant, it will be sufficient to state that DDA does not deal with individual cases. It is governed by a set of rules and regulations. Under these rules allotments are done by draw of lots, letter of allotment is issued, a schedule for payment within a prescribed timeframe is laid down, consequences for default in compliance are indicated. It did not appear possible for DDA not to receive the amount on the basis of allotment made in favour of the complainant. Moreover, no one could predict that the Civil Suit would go on and on for more than three years. WITH regard to allotment of an alternative flat we have not been shown that the complainant had at any time made an application for being considered for alternative allotment. For these reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum. As a result, the complaint filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parties as well as District Forum. Appeal allowed. ____________