RAJ SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Regular Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) the appellant/plaintiff impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 15.10.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 30.4.2015; whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction for directions to the respondent/defendant to allot the flat being No. 310, ground floor, Pocket-B, Phase-2, Sector-24, Dwarka, New Delhi has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/defendant/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) announced an Ambedkar Awas Yojna, 1989 for housing of the weaker sections of the society. Under the scheme, the appellant/plaintiff claimed that he was eligible under the MIG category and hence he applied under the MIG category. The appellant/plaintiff applied for allotment on hire-purchase basis. The appellant/plaintiff, however, received an allotment letter on the basis of the draw dated 15.9.1998 whereby the appellant/plaintiff was allotted the flat on cash-down basis and was directed to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 7,85,595.36/- on or before 25.5.1999 i.e the appellant/plaintiff was allotted the flat on cash-down basis and not on hire-purchase basis for which he had applied. Appellant/plaintiff approached the respondent/defendant for conversion of the allotment from cash-down basis to hire-purchase basis but the respondent/defendant showed its inability to do the same in view of its Resolution no. 145/1992. The appellant/plaintiff did not have the funds to make the entire payment and he therefore requested for extension and which were granted to him, with the last extension being up to 25.8.1999. The appellant/plaintiff still failed to pay the amount and hence the respondent/defendant cancelled the allotment of the subject flat and it also refused to accept the request of the appellant/plaintiff for conversion of the appellant's/plaintiff's category from cash-down basis to hire-purchase basis as per its policy.

(3.) The suit was contested on behalf of the respondent/defendant by stating that the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to the flat only on cash-down basis as per the draw of lots held on 15.9.1998 and since appellant/plaintiff inspite of repeated notices failed to deposit the price even after granting extensions, and finally upto 24.11.1999, and hence a show cause notice was issued to the appellant/plaintiff on 30.5.2002 and thereafter the allotment was cancelled on 12.11.2002. Respondent/defendant also pleaded that as per its Resolution no. 145/1992 it was decided that there will be no entitlement to change the mode of payment and no entitlement will be there of a registrant/allottee to change the allotment from cash-down basis to hire-purchase basis.