KAPIL RAINA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was first a tenant in Flat No. B-46 at Patpar Ganj allotted to one Arun Diwanwala, a member of R-4 society. He later purchased it after paying full consideration amount and executing relevant documents including a power of attorney and Conveyance Deed and is said to have acquired free hold rights by now. He alleges that thereafter office bearers of respondent society started harassing him and raising demands. He was asked to pay an 'entry fee/power of attorney charges' of Rs. 1 lac and was threatened of electricity and water supply disconnection and of being thrown out of the flat if he failed to satisfy the demands. He resisted the demand and pleaded that he was liable to pay only such charges as were recoverable from the original member (vendor) and not any unauthorised charges like entry fee/power of attorney charges which was not leviable by the society under any law. But despite this, the committee members interfered in his quiet possession of the premises and harassed him and his family members on one pretext or the other.

(2.) Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that impugned demand raised against petitioner was without any authority of law and in contravention of Registrar's directive dated 14.12.1999 restraining all housing societies from charging any "entry fee" from purchasers of flats from original members. He also pointed out that petitioner had acquired freehold rights meanwhile and yet the committee was dithering in transferring membership rights to him in terms of Rule 34-A of the relevant rules.

(3.) Respondent society has filed its counter, firstly, raising some technical objections regardingnon-impleadment of vendor (original member) and questioning locus of petitioner, etc. On merits, it is denied that it had raised any demand of Rs. 1 lac from petitioner on account of 'entry fee/power of attorney charges'. It, however, admits that it had raised a demand of Rs. 50,000/- from him as some transfer fee which it had also charged from other such purchasers of the flats. The society has also referred to its Managing Committee resolution dated 12.3.1996, resolving to raise refundable development and administrative charges for various categories of flats and non-refund of refundable security deposit made by the members along with it. It has claimed that petitioner had failed to pay the transfer fee and maintenance charges and has invoked Rule 34-A of the relevant rules to suggest that transfer of membership was subject to fulfilment of certain conditions which petitioner had failed to satisfy.