CANARA BANK Vs. K.L. RAJGARHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 27th December, 1984 between the parties and for other reliefs is for final adjudication. The plaintiff approached the court with a case that in or about 1984 the plaintiff bank had felt the need for purchase of residential flats for the use of its officers; the plaintiff entered into negotiations with the defendant who owned the plot of land admeasuring 300 sq yards bearing No. B -9, East of Kailash, New Delhi; that the defendant agreed to construct residential flats on the said plot and to hand over the same to the plaintiff; that agreement dated 27th December, 1984 was entered into between the parties.

(2.) AT this stage, the salient terms of the said agreement, insofar as relevant for the present, may be discussed. In the said agreement, the defendant is described as the vendor and the plaintiff as the purchaser; the agreement records that in pursuance to payment of Rs 27,100/ - the Delhi Development Authority on behalf of the President of India has granted a lease of the aforesaid plot of land to the defendant on the terms and conditions contained in the perpetual lease deed, copy whereof is annexed to the agreement; that the defendant had proposed that he will construct residential flats on the said plot of land in accordance with plan annexed to the agreement and of the area as specified in Schedule I to the agreement, at his own costs for the use of the plaintiff as residential premises and that the defendant had agreed to sell to the plaintiff the said flats alongwith the leasehold rights over the plot of land and the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the same. The plaintiff under the said agreement agreed to pay a total sum of Rs 32,07,500/ - to the defendant as consideration for the flats set out in Schedule I to the agreement together with the leasehold rights over the land and at the rate of Rs 340/ - per sq. ft. of covered area of the flat and Rs 250/ - per sq. ft. of the covered area in the basement as described in Schedule II to the agreement and in the instalments set out in Schedule III to the agreement; that the total consideration had been arrived at by taking into consideration the approximate area of each flat as mentioned in Schedule I but the said consideration was subject to variation and was to be finally determined after completion of the construction in all respects and after the actual area was measured - the total consideration payable was on the actual covered area ascertained on actual measurement; that as per the then plan, the ground floor, first floor and second floor each was to contain two flats of approximate covered area of 1000 sq. ft. and mezzanine floor and the third floor of barsati each were to contain one flat of 1000 sq. ft., besides basement of an approximately covered area of 1950 sq ft. It was further provided that if the defendant constructed additional two flats, the defendant shall sell the same only to the plaintiff at the same rates and subject to the same conditions and specifications as applicable to the other flats. It was further agreed that the defendant shall not construct even if permissible to do in excess of ten flats and basement. The obligation for obtaining of the necessary permission from the DDA or other governmental authorities for transferring and conveying all rights, title and interest in respect of land and the flats to the plaintiff was of the defendant and all expenses, charges in connection with transfer including payment of any statutory dues or amount by way of unearned increase in the value of the plot to the Delhi Development Authority or any other authority was also to be borne by the defendant. The defendant had agreed to complete the flats within the period of 18 months from the date of the agreement.

(3.) SOME of the clauses of the aforesaid agreement which would be relevant for the discussion hereunder are set out hereinbelow.