DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BAL KRISHAN GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein applied for allotment of a flat in Vth self financing housing registration scheme, 1982 floated by the appellant herein. A flat was allotted to the respondent. It appears that the letter of allotment sent by the appellant to the respondent was not delivered. It further appears that after the respondent received the letter of allotment, he deposited the two installments. The first deposit was made on 20. 4.1989 and the second deposit was made on 21.10. 1989. But the said deposits were made after great delay, with the result the appellant did not deliver possession of the flat to the respondent. Under such circumstances, the respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. The High court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant herein to allot a flat to the respondent in the next draw on receipt of interest at the rate of 12% p. a. , and thereafter at the rate of 18% p. a. , on delayed payments of installment. It is against the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that since the respondent did not apply for extension of time for depositing the installments within the due date, therefore, the order of allotment stood cancelled and further he disqualified himself to deposit the installments. We have perused the record but do not find any such averment by the appellant that the respondent did not apply for extension of time within due date. We, therefore, cannot presume that there was no application for extension of time by the respondent before the due date for making the payment. We, accordingly, reject the argument.

(3.) Learned counsel then urged that since the respondent deposited two installments after the due date in a bank and not with the appellant and, therefore, such deposit was not legal deposit and no benefit would accrue to the respondent on such deposit. Again we do not find any such averment by the appellant either in the counter-affidavit filed by them before the High Court or in this appeal. In the absence of such averments, the appellant is not entitled to raise such ground for the first time.