NAND LAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the memorandum dated 9th October,1987, whereby the allotment of flat No. BG-6/157-A, Paschim Puri, New Delhi, under Janta category in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The cancellation was for the reason that the petitioner had not complied with the letter of allotment dated 4th February, 1987 inasmuch as the first instalment as demanded was not paid within the stipulated period of one month. The letter is dated 4th February, 1987. It stipulates that a sum of Rs. 15, 868.76 should bepaid within one month. However, further condition which is condition No. 5 deals with extention of time to deposit the instalment. This condition stipulates that if the allottee does not make payment within the given time, the allotment will remain valid for one month more and thereafter it will stand cancelled automatically. The allottee has to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, on the delayed payment for that one month or a part thereof. In accordance with these terms, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 14,000.00 within the very first month of the allotment letter. He deposited the remaining amount of Rs. l,894.00 on 1st April, 1987, i.e. before the end of the 2nd month. The second payment included the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as stipulated. In view of these payments having been made, there was no reason for the Delhi Development Authority to cancel the allotment. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that this payment was considered to be the initial payment and not an instalment and as such clause 5 of the terms and conditions did not apply. After giving our careful consideration to this contention, we have no hesitation in rejecting the same as the allotment of flat itself is on instalment basis and the first payment has to be considered as the first instalment. In fact clause No. 7 of the terms and conditions itself stipulates that after the initial payment there will besubsequent instalment which means that even the first payment has been taken to be an instalment.

(2.) On the last date of hearing we had directed the learned counsel for the Delhi Development Authority to calculate the remaining amount due from the petitioner. He admits that while doing the calculation he has included the cancellation charges as also the interest on the remaining instalments. In our opinion the respondent is neither entitled to the interest on the remaining instalments nor the cancellation charges. As regard the cancellation charges we have already held that the cancellation was uncalled for. Regarding the interest, the respondent would have been entitled to the same if the possession of the flat had been given to the petitioner. The possession was not delivered to the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner. Therefore, we hold that the petitioner will be liable to pay the remaining instalments in one lump sum which the petitioner agrees to pay within one month from today. On payment of the amount, the Delhi Development Authority will deliver the possession of the flat to the petitioner within one month from that date. It is clarified that the petitioner will deposit the instalments which have become due till August 1988 and will continue to pay the remaining instalments as and when they fall due. The possession will be delivered within one month from the desposit of the instalments till date.

(3.) The rule is made absolute in these terms. There will be no orders as to costs.