RAJESH KUMARI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

(3.) The petitioner bid at an auction held on 9.2.2000 for a shop which was then advertised as having an area of 13.71 sq. metres. The petitioner's bid of Rs. 5,32,000.00 was the highest and was accepted. He deposited 1/3rd of the bid amount on 9.2.2000 itself with the respondent. A demand letter was issued to the petitioner subsequently on 6.3.2000 for the balance amount. In the demand letter the area shown was the same i.e. 13.71 sq. metres. However, the petitioner when he inspected the shop in question found that in point of fact it was 17.00 sq. metres in area. According to the petitioner there was some confusion in his mind as to whether he would be asked to pay only the amount that was mentioned in the demand letter or he would be asked to pay an additional amount for the additional area that was there on site. The petitioner, however, did not pay any amount within the period of thirty days stipulated under condition 2(viii) of the terms and conditions of the auction. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the demand-cum-allotment letter was to be accompanied by four copies of the proposed conveyance deed along with the copy of the site plan indicating the liability of stamp duty payable in terms of Clause 2(ix) of the said terms and conditions. It is only then, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the period of thirty days could be reckoned. Since these documents, and in particular the site plan, had admittedly not been supplied along with the demand letter, the petitioner was not in a position to know the exact area of the shop that would be allotted to him. These arguments are controverted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent and, in particular, he referred to Clause 2(i) of the terms and conditions which says that the auction was for built-up commercial units to be sold on "as is where is basis". It was to be presumed that the bidder had inspected the property before giving the bid. The other submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent is not charging anything extra for the shop, other than the bid amount. Although, the shop is 17.00 sq. metres in area, it includes an open area. The built-up area as such is exactly the same, i.e., 13.71 sq. metres as had been advertised for the auction. No further amount is being demanded from the petitioner. In fact, the entire built up area comprises of two shops, half of it (i.e., 13.71 sq. metres) shall be of the petitioner. The open area which is appurtenant to the said shops was not to be charged for. The petitioner was liable to pay only the bid amount; nothing more. The Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the queries about the area should have been raised at the first instance and it was only belatedly raised in October, 2000 and two months thereafter, the writ petition was filed. Of course, it is an admitted fact that the allotment was cancelled only after the filing of the writ petition on 8.1.2001. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was entitled to cancel the allotment in view of the express terms and conditions of the auction and in particular Clause 2(viii) thereof.