HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DHARAM PAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the demand of interest towards the additional price and the resumption of the plot in dispute for non-payment thereof was illegal. As a consequence, the defendant-appellant was directed to offer possession of the plot to the plaintiff respondent immediately after completing development work. However, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent with regard to rendition of accounts was dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent was allotted a commercial plot No. 912 in Sector 5, Kurukshetra vide allotment letter dated 2.3.1987 for a tentative price of Rs. 1,07,215.50. Fifteen per cent of the sale price i.e. Rs. 60,090/- was payable within 30 days and the balance amount was to be paid either in lump sum within 60 days without any interest or in six equal annual instalments without interest till the offer of possession was made by the defendant- appellants. After the offer of possession interest @ 10 per cent p.a. was chargeable. The possession of the plot was to be given to the plaintiff- respondent only on completion of development work in the area. In case of failure to pay instalments within the stipulated period there was a clause for imposition of penalty which might even result in resumption of plot. It is admitted position that the plaintiff-respondent opted to pay by instalments i.e. six equal annual instalments. It has been found that the schedule of payment was not strictly adhered to by the plaintiff-respondent and that the compensation payable to the original landlord was enhanced by the Court. The enhancement in the price was payable in terms of advertisement Ex. P2 and allotment letter Ex. P3. The additional price as determined by the Appellate Authority was payable within a period of 30 days of its demand. The dispute raised by the plaintiff-respondent was with regard to the additional price of enhancement of compensation payable to the land-lower. He also questioned demand of interest on the unpaid instalments which was payable only after offer of delivery of possession. It has been found that the development work was far from completion despite the fact that tall claim was made by the defendant-appellant. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the statement made by DW2 J.E., Ram Dutt Sharma who admitted that market of Sector 5 was not developed nor any dispensary had come up. He also accepted that parks etc. were still undeveloped. It has further been found that offer of possession was not made by the defendant-appellant. Therefore, it was neither entitled to interest on the tentative price being paid in instalments nor on additional price demanded by way of enhancement in compensation. It is in the aforementioned circumstances that the lower appellate Court has made the following observations in paras 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 :

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and perusing the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below I am of the considered view that no interference of this Court would be warranted in the concurrent findings of fact. Once the area has not developed nor the possession has been delivered in terms of the allotment letter Ex. P3, the plaintiff-appellants were not entitled to demand any interest. The non-payment of interest, therefore, could not constitute a ground for resumption of the plot allotted to the plaintiff- respondent. Similarly, no interest on the amount of enhanced compensation could be awarded. The findings are based on cogent evidence. Even the law has been rightly applied by the Courts below. No question of law has been raised which may warrant admission of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is wholly without merit and is thus liable to be dismissed.