PRATAP SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delhi Development Authority (in short the DDA) floated a scheme for the, allotment/sale of MIG flats under its ligher-purchase scheme for the general public, Usha Rani, respondent No.2 terein got her name registered under the said scheme in September, 1979. Sh ; deposited a sum of Rs.4,500/- on 29th September,1979. DDA vide its letter dated 23th April, 1990 intimated the This amount was to be paid in instalments after giving adjustment to the amounts already paid. Simultaneously, she was acted to deposit a sum of Rs.31,859/- which amount was deposited on 25th November, 1993, and another sum of Rs.12,000/- was deposited, on 20th December, 1993. She also submitted the requisite documents, demanded by the DDA. On deposit of the amount and the requisite documents, DDA issued letter datet 21 December, 1993 asking respondent No.2 to appear before Junior Engineer for taking possession of the flat meutioned above. Pursuance to possession Latter dated 4th January, 1994 and after obtaining "No Objection Certificate" possession was takan by respondent No.2 of the flat in question. She also coained electricity and water connection in her name Since respondent No.2 was in need of money, she entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff appellant and thus executed General Power of Attorney in his favour. Plaintiff/appellant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- as consideration againsst all the payments made by respondesu No.2 and also agreed to pay the balance instalments to the DDA towards the price of the flat in question. After having received the amount, the respondent No.2 in part performance of the agreerment handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the flat in question to the plaintiff/appellant Plaintiff/appellant paid, the subsequent instalment to DDA on various dates, After having paid the price, plaintiff/appellant wanted the flat to be transferred. in his name as per the scheme of the DDA. Instend DDA officials threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, therefore, he filed the suit for specific performance, declaration and injunctment. Notice on this was issued to the DDA as well as respondsnt No. 2 Usha Rani. Their counsel appeared but did not file the written statements nor appeared subsequently, the were, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. Plaintiff led evidence. However, the trial court came to the conclusion that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the DDA, hence there was no question of grand g specific perfonmance nor declaration. The suit was accordingly dismissed. Hence this appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr.M.R.Chawla, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Deepak Khadaria, Advocate for the responden/DDA. No-one on behalf of respondent No.2 appeared. The fact of the matte is that the plaintiff/appellant had sought transfer of the flat in his favour basin ; his relief on the strength of power of attorney executed by Smt. Usha Rani, rspondent No.2 in his favour. Admittedly the DDA has a scheme which penmits transfer of properties in favour of the person in whose favour the power of attorney has been executed by the original allottee. In this case, Smt.Usha Rani, respondent No.2 the original allottee had executed the General Power of Attorney exhibit. PW-1/10 by virtue of which the rights had accrued in favour of the plaintiff to seek transfer of the flat in question in his favour, of course subject to payment of usual charges. The physical possession of the flat in question is with the plaintiff/appellant. We therefore, asked the counsel for the DDA that pursuance to the scheme of the DDA why con't the flat in question be transferred in favour of the plaintiff who is the power of attorney holder of Smt.Usha Rani, respondent No.2 in whose favour the fiat No.100-B, Block A(D), 1st floors Pitarn Pura, Delhi was alloted and the possession of which was hanaded over to her.

(3.) Counsel for the DDA informed from instruction that in order to accede to the request of the plaintiff the plaintiffsn all have to deposit a sum of Rs.6,04,046.96. Beside this amount the plaintiff has also to pay restoration charges at the fiat stood, cancelled in the name of he respondent. Counsel for the appellant says that the cancellation of the flat was neither justified nor required because at no stage my breach was committed by the allottee i.e. respondent No.2 nor by the plaintiff in making payment. Rather the plaintiff/appellant has always been prepared to deposit the amount and had been repeatedly asking the DDA intimate the amount to be deposited. For no fault of his, flat could not be cancelled nor he is liable to pay restoration charges.