DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJIV GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal impugns a judgment dated 23.8.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.1415/2013 whereby the appellant/DDA has been directed to allot Flat No.108, Second Floor, Pocket -2, Sector -23, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Flat No. 108) and in the event of the said flat not being available, an alternate flat in the same locality be allotted to the petitioner (respondent herein) within eight (8) weeks thereof. To balance the equities, the respondent herein had been directed to pay the DDA, the cost of the flat along with simple interest @ 7 per cent per annum from 27.4.2006 i.e., the date when the DDA filed its affidavit before the District Consumer Redressal -II Qutub Delhi Forum (hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum') .

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent had applied for allotment of an MIG flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 on 3.10.1979. He was declared successful in a computerised draw of lots held on 29.11.2002 and Flat No. 74, Ground Floor, Pocket -2, Sector -8, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Flat No. 74) was allotted to him. However, subsequently Flat No.108 was allotted to him through a Demand -cum -Allotment letter dated 30.04.2003 which further stated that Flat No. 74 had been wrongly allotted to him and in the event the amount asked for Flat No. 108 was not deposited by the stipulated date, the registration would automatically stand cancelled. The respondent insisted upon being allotted Flat No. 74 but the DDA failed to intimate any reason for the change. Hence, the respondent sought redressal before the District Forum where the DDA contended that the allotment of Flat No.74 was a mistake and the inadvertent error had been rectified within three (3) months by the DDA by allotting the alternate flat bearing No.108. The Forum found the DDA deficient in services and awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/ - to the petitioner towards compensation and costs. It also held that the DDA was unjustified in allotting Flat No. 74, which was not in existence and it owed a duty to the respondent (complainant therein) as an allottee of a flat in the draw held on 29.11.2002. Thereafter, the respondent sent the letter of acceptance for the subsequent allotment of Flat No.108 and sought intimation about the amount due and payable by him. The DDA, however, intimated the respondent that he was not entitled to any flat because the Forum had only directed payment of costs and no other relief.

(3.) THE said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been impugned on the ground that the respondent did not adhere to the terms & conditions contained in the letter dated 30.04.2003 for almost a decade and the NPRS, 1979 under which the respondent was allotted a flat was withdrawn after due publication in leading newspapers. It is submitted that, therefore no allotment could subsist in favour of the respondent as by his own default in not complying with the Demand -cum -Allotment letter, the respondent had waived his right to such allotment. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a judgment of this Court in LPA No.277/2013 titled Delhi Development Authority v. Sunil Kumar Jain decided on 11.3.2014, in which the allottee had filed a writ petition after six (6) years of closure of the NPRS. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in interpreting the order of the Forum because it could not have recorded that the complainant/respondent was not entitled to flat No.108 since such a prayer was never made before the Forum.