Sachdeve Educational Society (R) vs D.D.A.

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.—The limitedquestion for consideration in the present petition arises from the fact that thoughon 12.3.93Division Benchof this courthaddirected possession to be handed over to the petitioner of the propertyin question on payment of a further amount of Rs.9.75lacsapart from the earlier payment ofRs.14 lacsthe possession was not delivered.The payment of Rs.9.75 lacswasmade on23.4.1993. Only part possession was handed over to the petitioner on 13.3.95 and the completepossession washandedoveron 27.1.1997.

The petitionerhas impugned the demandletter dated12.3.99since the petitioner hasbeenchargedinterestfor balance payment but no credit onaccount of theinterest has been given to the petitioner for thedelay inhanding over the possession. It may, however,be noted that the petitioner has not paid any amount against his further demand as per the allotment letter dated 12.3.99.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent thereis recital about the previous litigation and the challenge by the petitioner.However, in thepresent casewearenot concerned with thecostsof the propertyinquestionoverwhichthere isnowno dispute.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In myconsidered view it is not opento the respondent authorityto recover themoneyand not deliverpossession. If interest is charged from the allotteeonbelatedpayments thencertainly the allotteeis also entitled to interest at the same rate on theamountdeposited by him fornon-deliveryof possession. The petitioner had already deposited the amounton 23.4.93. Taking areasonabletime into accountthe possession should have at least have been delivered by the end of June, 1993.The fact that part possession had been handed over to the petitioner is of no avail since part possession which was handed to the petitioner initially of 1.18 acres and the balance land of 0.82acreswas delivered only inJanuary,1997. Thiswas on account of encroachments on land. Iam thusof the considered view that the petitionerwould be entitled to interest for the period from 1.7.93to 30.12.96. It is also to be kept in mind thatasa consequence of non-delivery of possession the petitioner hasbeen deprived of the enjoyment of the propertyandhas notbeenabletoconstruct the property resulting in increase in cost of construction. It is, however, to be noted that the petitioner failedto makethepayment evenof thebalance principal amount in terms of the letter dated 12.3.1999 and thus the interest would continue to run against the petitioner till the balance payment is made.In view of theaforesaid the impugneddemandletterdated 12.3.99isquashed and the respondent is directedto issue afreshdemand letter with in four weeks calculatinginterestdue from the petitioner for the furtherperiodonthe unpaid amounttillissueof demandletter and giving credit to the petitioner for the interest on the amount deposited by him at the same ratefor theperiod from 1.7.93 to31.12.96. The petitioner shall makethe payment intermsof the demandletterwithina period of four weeksof the receipt of the said letter.

Thewrit petitionis disposed ofin the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

In view of the disposal of the writ petition no furtherordersarerequiredto bepassedin the application.Application stands disposed of.