SUBHASH CHAND JINDAL vs VICE CHAIRMAN D.D.A.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainants purchased a plot No. C-1 19 in Yamuna Vihar, Delhi in an auction held by the respondent on 7.2.89. The plot was under the possession of trespassers and consequently the possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainants. They filed a complaint before the State Commission for directing the respondent to deliver the possession of the plot. During the pendency of the complaint a compromise was arrived at between the parties according to which the respondent agreed to allot an alternative plot to the complainants. In view of the compromise the complainants withdrew the complaint.

IT is further pleaded that instead of allotting an alternative plot, the respondent delivered possession of the same plot which was auctioned to the complainants as they were able to remove the encroachments from the plot. The complainants thereafter filed a Civil Suit No. 91 of 1990 titled as Subhash Chand& Ors. v. DDA for recovery of Rs. 39208.52 as damages for not delivering the alternative plot. That suit is being contested by the defendant in the Civil Court. The complainants requested the respondent to execute the lease deed of the plot in their favour. They have refused to do on the ground that unless the Civil Suit was withdrawn by the complainants they would not execute the same. The complainants have consequently prayed that the respondent be directed to execute the sale deed in their favour.

The complaint has been contested by the respondent. It has been inter-alia pleaded by them that the complainants are not a ''consumers'' and therefore have got no cause of action to file the complaint. It has further been pleaded that the complainants are not entitled to any damages from the respondent and consequently they could not institute a Civil Suit for recovery of the same.

THE question that arises for determination is whether the complainants are the ''consumers'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. It is well settled that the respondent is rendering service to the public by developing plots and allotting the same to the public. (See U.P Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Garima Shukla & Others I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC). Consequently the allottees of the plots are consumers and thus can file complaints against the respondent incase they fail to transfer the plots. The next question that arises to be determined is, whether the complainants can enforce the execution of a lease deed in their favour by the respondent. It is common knowledge that the D.D.A.. is transferring land to purchasers on lease hold basis. The lease hold rights in the plot of land can be transferred only by execution of a registered lease deed. If the D.D.A. delivered possession of the plot but they do not execute a lease deed the rights of the purchaser therein remain inchoate. In view of the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that in order to transfer the title of a plot to the purchaser the execution of the lease deed is essential.

FACED with this situation Mr. Goyal sought to argue that the complainant had no right to institute a Civil Suit against the D.D.A. and the Commission should record a finding in that regard. We do not agree with this contention. The respondent can take up this point before the Civil Court in the suit, if so advised. Consequently we reject this submission. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint and direct the respondent to execute the lease deed in due form in favour of the complainant within a period of three months. No order as to costs. Complaint accepted.