KRISHNA RANI KWATRA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff filed suit, inter alia, alleging that she is the sole proprietor of Quation Exports and has been carrying business at N-233, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi. In a public auction held on February 4,1986 by the DDA, defendant No. 1, she was allotted shop No. 77, Community Centre, Friend's Colony, New Delhi against the amount of Rs. 2,54,000.00 . A sum of Rs. 63,500.00 being 25% of that amount was deposited by her on the said date itself. In fact, this amount of Rs. 63,500.00 was towards advance instead of being earnest money. By the letter dated April 4, 1986 defendant No. 1 intimated the plaintiff that the bid of Rs. 2,54,000.00 has been accepted and the balance consideration together with other charges amounting to Rs. l,96,540.00 be deposited within 30 days. It is further alleged that because of the business activities and visits abroad in connection with the business the plaintiff could not deposit the amount as per the said letter dated April 4,1986. However,she has been always willing and ready to make the payment of the balance amount. By another letter dated June 14.. 1986 defendant No. 1 conveyed to the plaintiff that the bid in respect of the said shop has been cancelled and earnest money forfeited because of her failure to deposit the balance amount. Prior to June 14, 1986 no letter was received by the plaintiff from defendant No. 1 giving her opportunity to pay the balance consideration. After the receipt of the said letter dated June 14, 1986 the plaintiff made a number of representations to defendant No. 1 to receive the balance consideration and issue lease-deed in her favour of the said shop No. 77. She even offered to pay interest on the delayed payment. She also personally met the Deputy Director (C.E.) and offered payment of Rs. l,96,540.00 through pay order No. 010304 dated July 29, 1986 which he declined to receive.

(2.) It is also pleaded that defendant No. 1 re-auctioned the said shop on March 3, 1987 against the premium of Rs. 6,10,000.00 to defendant No. 5. After re-auction plaintiff received a letter dated March 18, 1987 under the signature of Deputy Director (C.E.) of defendant No. 1 conveying that the offer for making payment of the balance consideration cannot be acceded to. Decision to re-auction the shop by defendants 1 & 2 is totally illegal. It is stated that the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Development Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 neither make the time the essence of the contract nor do they place any restriction on the power/discretion of defendants I and 2 to enlarge the time for making the payment of the balance consideration. Decision of defendants 1 & 2 to cancell the plaintiff's bid and forfeit the amount of Rs. 63,500.00 is illegal. It is stated that even if the interpretation of the said Rules is that the time mentioned therein for payment of the balance consideration is mandatory and is not extendable, then the provisions of Rules 29 & 32 are arbitrary, unreasonable and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It is further alleged that under the aforesaid Rules the bid of the plaintiff could be confirmed only by the Vice-Chairman (defendant No. 2) of defendant No. I whereas in this case it is purported to have been accepted bydefendant No. 1. The period of 30 days for making the payment would commence only after the bid is confirmed by defendant No. 2. It is alleged that Rule 45 of the said Rules gives an overriding power to the Central Government to relax the requirement of any rule and there was sufficient material for the Central Government to have relaxed the rigours of the rule in the matter of extending time to make the payment of the balance consideration by the plaintiff. It is claimed that apart from specific performance of the contract the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount of Rs. 63,500.00 from June 14, 1986 upto the date of the execution of the lease-deed in her favour. She is further entitled in the alternative for refund of the said amount of Rs. 63,500.00 and compensation of Rs. 3,56,000.00 for breach of the contract besides interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.63,500.00 from February 4,1986 and at the same rate on Rs. 3,56,000 .00 from the date of the plaintiff's notice dated March 13, 1987. It was prayed that a decree of specific performance of the contract directing the defendants to execute the lease-deed and deliver possession of the shop in suit in addition to payment of Rs. 11,060.00 by way of damages be passed in favour of the plaintiff. In the alternative it was prayed that a money decree for Rs. 4,47,925.00 with interest pendente lite and future be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.