MANPREET KAUR vs Meerut Development Authority

MR. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member-Complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that sometime in the month of June, 1989, Meerut Development Authority - opposite party issued advertisement(s) in all leading national newspapers inviting applications from general public for allotment of residential plots in ''Shatabdi Nagar Group Housing Scheme''. Pursuant to the advertisement(s) the complainant submitted application form duly filled up along with a demand draft of Rs. 15,000 as earnest money on 9.12.1989. Complainant was further asked to pay Rs. 30,000, which she deposited with the authority. Complainant received a letter dated 20.2.1991 from the authority conveying allotment of plot No. 400, measuring 288 sq. mtrs. in category type ''B'', Phase-II, Sector 6 in the said scheme. It was stated that after advertisement was issued, the complainant went to see the site and she found that two lane roads were being made and street lights, public health works and sewerage were being laid. Complainant again inspected the site after receipt of allotment letter and she noticed that the entire development work was stopped and the site was in the same position as it was in the year 1989. Complainant received another letter dated 2.2.1996 askings her to deposit due instalments of Rs. 1,46,259 with 18% interest failing which allotment of plot was threatened to be cancelled. It was further stated that the authority has delayed handing over possession of the plot. Attributing deficiency in service on the part of Authority, in the prayer clause the following reliefs were claimed: Amount (Rs.) (i) Escalation in construction cost as per PWD (B & R) rates 19,13,690.00 (ii) Claim @ 18% compound interest on the amount deposited

,00,000.00 (III) Claim on account of mental and physical harassment to be recovered from M.D.A. as well as officers found responsible 25,00,000.00 (iv) Litigation expenses 40,000.00 (v) Claim on account of loss of earning of rent 9,06,500.00. (vi) Claim due to escalation in the charges to be paid to the Architect 38,274.00 (vii) Chasing the case 5,00,000.00 2. Opposite party-Authority contested the complaint by filing written version. It was not disputed that in the year 1989 the Authority invited applications for registration of allotment of residential plots under Shatabdi Nagar Hosing Scheme and the complainant applied for a plot measuring 288 sq. metres and deposited registration money of Rs. 15,000 on 9.12.1989. By the letter dated 8.3.1990 the Authority demanded amount of Rs. 30,000 which the complainant deposited. It was stated that on 20.2.1991, instalment letter was sent to the complainant but she failed to deposit the required instalment within the stipulated time. Again, letter dated 2.2.1996 was issued to the complainant and she was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,46,259 along with interest @ 18% p.a. but she did not deposit any amount towards instalments. It was asserted that Sector 6 in which the plot was allotted to the complainant, is under development. It was stated that the complainant got the registration with intention to sell the plot for making financial gain. Estimated cost of the plot was Rs. 1,44,000. Allegation of deficiency in service and liability to pay the amount claimed were denied.

WE have heard Ms. Astha Tyagi, Amicus Curiae for the complainant and Ms. Reena Singh for the opposite party-Authority and have been taken through the records.

IT is not in dispute that only two amounts of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 30,000 were deposited by the complainant with the opposite party-Authority. Sum of Rs. 15,000 was towards registration amount while amount of Rs. 30,000 was towards reservation money. Estimated cost of the plot was Rs. 1,44,000 which was payable in instalments. Last demand notice issued by the Authority to the complainant dated 17.8.1997 (copy at pages 37 and 38). It is mentioned therein that the amount of instalment including interest of Rs. 16,261.50 due on 31.7.1993, Rs. 15,382.50 due on 31.3.1994, Rs. 14,503.50 due on 31.7.1994, Rs. 13,654.50 due on 31.1.1995, Rs. 12,745.50 due on 31.7.1995 and Rs. 11,866.50 due on 31.1.1996 had not been paid. Interest @ 18% p.a. is also payable on these amounts. Without making payment of the said amounts the present complaint had been filed sometime in the year 1999 claiming afore-mentioned reliefs. Ground for non-payment of the amount due as alleged in para No. 3 (iii) of the complaint which has been pressed by Ms. Astha Tyagi during the course of argument is non-development of the sector wherein the allotted plot is situated. Except filing her affidavit the complainant has not adduced any independent evidence in support of what is stated in the said para of the complaint. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate for the Authority that the complainant could not have withheld payment of the instalments due averring non-development of the sector. Strong reliance has been placed on the decision in Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and Ors. Etc. v. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd., Etc., II (2006) SLT 592=2006 (2) SCALE 712. Identical issue fell for consideration before the Supreme Court with reference to the provisions contained in Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the Rules known as Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973. In para No. 24 of the decision (at page 723 of the report), it was held: "On a plain reading of the definition "amenities" read with Rule 11(2) and Rule 12, it cannot be construed to mean that the allottees could take upon themselves not to pay the lease amount and take recourse to say that since all the facilities were not provided, therefore, they are not under any obligation to pay the instalment, interest and penalty, if any, as provided under the Act and the Rules. It is not possible to accept a sweeping proposition that if all the facilities or amenities are not provided, then the allottees/lessees can take upon themselves not to pay the lease amount, interest and penalty would be going too far. It has never been the condition precedent. It is true that in order to fully enjoy the allotment, proper linkage is necessary. But to say that this is a condition precedent, that is not the correct approach in the matter......"

RATIO of this decision squarely applies to this case. Complainant who has not paid even a single instalment, could not have withheld payment of the instalments on the said ground and is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. Deposited amount of Rs. 45,000 is to be refunded to her with interest which we quantify @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint.

ACCORDINGLY, the complaint is dismissed. Opposite party-Authority shall refund amount of Rs. 45,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint to the complainant within two months thereof. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.