BHUSHAN LAL CHAWLA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of the petitioner got registered for an LIG flat on hire purchase basis in Residential Scheme known as NPRS, 1979. Father of the petitioner died in 1985. A demand-cum-allotment letter was received by the petition on 17.2.1993 at a disposal cost of Rs. 2,69,800.00, cost was calculated by the respondent and required to be paid by the petitioner on cash down basis. There was a clause in the allotment-cum-demand letter that if the payment was not received by the respondent on or before 18th May, 1993, there will be an automatic cancellation of the allotment. After draw of lots was held on 28.12.1992, within 45 days of the draw of lots, the petitioner wrote a letter on29.3.1993 that his father has died and his name may he substituted in place of his deceased father so as to enable him to make payment of the amount.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that although he has intimated to the respondent 'about death of his father in May, 1993, the respondent did not send any demand-cum-allotment letter in the name of the petitioner. It has been contended before me by learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent took four years to mutate the name of the petitioner in their record in place of his deceased father and it was only on 4.11.1997 that a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to the petitioner. In the said demand-cum-allotment letter respondent enhanced the cost of the flat from Rs. 2,69,800.00 to Rs. 3,82,026.25. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned demand is totally arbitrary, illegal and unjustified.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for DDA has contended that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1985. Intimation of the death of father of the petitioner was not sent by the petitioner prior to 1993. He has further contended that the documents required to be filed by the petitioner for getting the name of the petitioner mutated in place of late Chaman Lal was not filed by the petitioner and, therefore, respondent took four years' time to record change in the name of petitioner. He has further contended that petitioner has not deposited any amount apart from a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 and an amount of Rs. 1,500.00 which was deposited by father of the petitioner.