MR. BHANU DUTT Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner got himself registered with the respondent/DDA for allotment of an MIG flat under its New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS) 1979. In a draw of lots held on 1st June, 1987, one flat bearing No. 155 -A(Ground Floor) in Pocket -F, Nand Nagri, Delhi was allotted to the petitioner and a Demand -cum -Allotment Letter bearing Block dates 7.7.1987 - 15.7.1987 was issued to him, requiring him to deposit the amount of Rs. 150181.55 on or before 13.9.1987. The aforesaid amount could be deposited, with interest, on or before 13.10.1987. It was clearly stipulated in the Demand -cum -Allotment Letter that there would be an automatic cancellation of the allotment after 13.10.1987. The appellant did not deposit the aforesaid amount on or before the last date stipulated in the Demand -cum -Allotment Letter. He, on the other hand, filed a Civil Suit challenging the demand on the ground that since the cost of the flat indicated in the brochure issued by DDA was only Rs. 42,000/ -, it was not competent to demand a higher cost of Rs. 157400/ - from him. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim injunction. The learned Civil Judge directed stay of cancellation of the allotment pending disposal of the suit. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - with DDA towards the cost of the aforesaid flat. On 9.9.1997, on coming to know of the decision of the Supreme Court, holding that a Pricing Policy of DDA could not be challenged, the petitioner deposited an additional amount of Rs. 101683/ - with DDA, thereby depositing the entire amount of Rs. 151683/ - which DDA had demanded, vide Demand -cum -Allotment Letter issued to the petitioner in the year 1987. On 6.3.2000, the learned Civil Judge, before whom the civil suit filed by the petitioner was pending, directed DDA to issue a Demand Notice to the petitioner regarding interest and other charges, if any. The civil Suit filed by the petitioner, however, came to be dismissed in default on 23.8.2004, thereby bringing to an end the interim stay against the cancellation which the learned Civil Judge had granted in the said civil suit. The petitioner kept on representing to DDA for giving possession of the above referred flat to him. He was informed by DDA that the aforesaid flat has been allotted to some other registrant. Being aggrieved from cancellation of the allotment made to him, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the cancellation and a direction to DDA to refer his case to the Lt. Governor for condonation of delay in making payment and to give possession of the aforesaid flat to him. In its counter -affidavit, the respondent DDA has stated that the cost of Rs. 42,000/ - given in the brochure issued by it was only the illustrative/tentative cost and not the final cost of the flats to be allotted by it under the NPRS 1979. It is further stated in the reply that the request of the petitioner for restoration of the allotment made to it was duly considered and was rejected.

(2.) IT is an admitted position that the petitioner did not make payment of Rs. 151683/ - to DDA on or before the last date stipulated in the Demand -cum -Allotment Letter issued to him. Since the Demand -cum -Allotment Letter contained a specific clause for automatic cancellation of the allotment after the last date stipulated therein for making payment of the balance price of the flat, the allotment made to the petitioner stood automatically cancelled on the expiry of the aforesaid time. The petitioner, in my view, was not justified in filing a Civil Suit obtaining an interim order of injunction on the ground that DDA could not have demanded Rs. 157400/ - as the cost of the flat allotted to him. If a person who otherwise not being entitled in law to the relief sought in a suit/petition, obtains an interim order, he does so at his own risk and in the event of such suit/petition being dismissed, no benefit of the interim order can be claimed by him. Therefore, instead of filing a Civil Suit challenging the cost of the flat demanded by DDA, the petitioner ought to have paid the amount of Rs. 151683/ - on or before the last date stipulated in the Demand -cum -Allotment Letter. Having failed to do so, he has no legal right to seek restoration of the allotment made to him. The issue involved in this petition came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Asha N. Madnani v. D.D.A. : 1997 I AD (Del) 385. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner got herself registered under NPRS 1979, for allotment of residential flat from DDA and deposited a sum of Rs. 4500/ - as the registration amount. She was allotted a flat in Rohini at the cost of Rs. 209100/ -. She sought extension of time for payment of the instalments which she was required to deposit with DDA from time -to -time. Such extension having been granted by DDA, the aforesaid instalments were paid by her in time. The allotment made to her, however, was cancelled by DDA on account of nonpayment of dues. When the cancellation of allotment was challenged by the petitioner, it was stated on behalf of DDA that since the instalments had been paid by the petitioner in time, the cancellation was founded and could be supported only on the ground of non -submission of certain documents, which the petitioner was required to submit within a period of 90 days. Allowing the writ petition, the Division Bench, inter alia, held as under: -

(3.) IT would, thus, be seen that the view taken by the Division Bench was that in case of defaulting in payment of the price of the flat, DDA would be entitled to cancel the allotment and the allottee defaulted in making payment of the price has to make way for a wait -listed applicant who is willing to make payment to DDA. The Division Bench specifically held that the terms as to payment, as per Schedule are mandatory. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner having defaulted in making payment in terms of the Demand -cum -Allotment Letter issued to him, DDA was fully justified in treating the allotment as cancelled and allotting a flat to another wait -listed registrant.