SACHDEVE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (R) Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE limited question for consideration in the present petition arises from the fact that though on 12.3.93 Division Bench of this court had directed possession to be handed over to the petitioner of the property in question on payment of a further amount of Rs.9.75lacs a part from the earlier payment of Rs.14 lacs the possession was not delivered.The payment of Rs.9.75 lacs was made on 23.4.1993. Only part possession was handed over to the petitioner on 13.3.95 and the complete possession was handed over on 27.1.1997.

(2.) THE petitioner has impugned the demand letter dated12.3.99since the petitioner hasbeenchargedinterestfor balance payment but no credit onaccount of theinterest has been given to the petitioner for thedelay inhanding over the possession. It may, however,be noted that the petitioner has not paid any amount against his further demand as per the allotment letter dated 12.3.99.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In myconsidered view it is not opento the respondent authorityto recover themoneyand not deliverpossession. If interest is charged from the allotteeonbelatedpayments thencertainly the allotteeis also entitled to interest at the same rate on the amount deposited by him for non -delivery of possession. The petitioner had already deposited the amount on 23.4.93. Taking areasonable time into accountthe possession should have at least have been delivered by the end of June, 1993. The fact that part possession had been handed over to the petitioner is of no avail since part possession which was handed to the petitioner initially of 1.18 acres and the balance land of 0.82 acres was delivered only in January, 1997. This was on account of encroachments on land. I am thus of the considered view that the petitioner would be entitled to interest for the period from 1.7.93 to 30.12.96. It is also to be kept in mind that as a consequence of non -delivery of possession the petitioner has been deprived of the enjoyment of the property and has not been able to construct the property resulting in increase in cost of construction. It is, however, to be noted that the petitioner failed to makethepayment even of the balance principal amount in terms of the letter dated 12.3.1999 and thus the interest would continue to run against the petitioner till the balance payment is made. In view of theaforesaid the impugned demand letter dated 12.3.99 is quashed and the respondent is directed to issue afresh demand letter with in four weeks calculating interest due from the petitioner for the further period on the unpaid amount till issue of demand letter and giving credit to the petitioner for the interest on the amount deposited by him at the same rate for the period from 1.7.93 to 31.12.96. The petitioner shall make the payment interms of the demand letter within a period of four weeks of the receipt of the said letter.