SMT. ARUN GUPTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 for allotment of an MIG flat. She had given her residential address as N -21, North Avenue, Delhi where she was residing at that point of time. In the year 1990, she shifted her residence to Flat No. A -355, Moti Bagh -I, New Delhi and submitted a letter to the DDA informing the DDA of the change of her address. On 5.9.1998, the respondent held a draw of lots wherein Flat No. 405(FST), Pocket -A, Sector -13, Dwarka was allotted to the petitioner on hire purchase basis and an amount of Rs. 3,76,796.17 was demanded as an initial deposit which could be paid with interest upto 1.11.1999. The remaining amount had to be paid in 120 monthly instalments of Rs. 5906.01, commencing from 10.10.1999. The petitioner states that she did not receive the demand -cum -allotment letter from the respondent and learnt of the allotment in her favour through a public advertisement. She personally contacted the DDA for issuance of a demand -cum -allotment letter at the correct address. Since the time initially granted for making the initial deposit was about to get over on 30.10.1999, the petitioner requested for further time to deposit the amount and this request was acceded to by the respondent by granting her time upto 30.11.1999 with usual charges. The petitioner admittedly made payment of the amount as per the demand letter. She was required to pay an amount of Rs. 3,76,796.17 whereas she deposited an amount of Rs. 3,87,000/ - before 30.11.1999.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on 1.2.2000, she deposited the desired documents with the respondent. The forwarding letter placed on record states that the petitioner is enclosing three copies of possession letter duly attested, copies of bank challan, registration certificate, affidavit on non -judicial stamp paper, undertaking on non -judicial stamp paper, photograph and specimen signatures duly attested. In the forwarding letter, the documents attached with it were also serialised as 1 to 7 wherein serial No. 6 pertained to photograph and signature attested. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of receipt of the said forwarding letter and the documents, the documents were checked and tick marked on the copy of the letter dated 1.2.2000 with the petitioner.

(3.) THE next step was for the DDA to deliver possession of the flat to the petitioner. However, there was no word from the DDA in this regard. The petitioner states that she visited the office of the respondent on 3.8.2001 to pursue her case since the respondent was incommunicado and again sent a communication on 16.10.2002. In this communication, the petitioner complained that in spite of her having deposited the required amount and also submitting the required documents, possession of the flat had not been handed over to her so far, although a period of 2 -1/2 years had since elapsed. She further stated that she had been visiting the office of the respondent and every time she was told that the flats were under the stage of completion, or a blank assurance was given to her that she would get the possession soon. In this communication she also demanded interest on the amount which she had deposited towards the initial deposit, since the respondent had failed to deliver possession of the flat.