ESTATE OFFICER, HUDA Vs. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/decree dated 2.11.2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby he partly allowed the appeal preferred against the judgment/decree dated 17.9.2004 rendered by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad whereby he decreed the suit declaring the impugned notices or action in regard to the resumption of the booth in question as null and void with a further direction to the plaintiffs to make the payment of remaining instalments, if any, including 10% interest per annum on the delayed payment within one month from the passing of the judgment and directed the defendants to refund the excess amount, if any, to the plaintiffs within one month.

(2.) THE facts which form the backdrop of the suit are that the plaintiffs had purchased commercial booth No. 126, Sector 15, Faridabad measuring 9 feet X 24 feet X 3 inch from Subhash Chander son of Bhagwan Dass as per the re-allotment letter No. 12 dated 4.1.1990 issued by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as 'the authority') Faridabad. Previously, Subhash Chander had purchased the same in open auction held on 10.7.1989 for Rs. 3,41,500/- and deposited 10% of the sale price at the time of auction and further 15% of the sale price was to be deposited within the stipulated period as per the allotment letter. After auction, the allottee approached the authority several times for delivery of possession of the plot, but the authority failed to give the possession as there was no development work done at the site as shown in the site plan, which was displayed at the time of auction. The defendant had made assurance to the plaintiffs at the time of allotment that the development work would be done at the site in question as early as possible and the possession will be delivered after depositing 25% of the sale price and that all the commercial booths in the residential areas would be closed as early as possible and they would not be allowed to do their commercial activities in the same. On believing these assurances, Subhash Chander purchased the disputed site. That till March, 1994, there have been no development works on the road, water sewerage, drains, electricity poles etc. In the month of January, 1994, the plaintiffs constructed the double storey building on the site in question after spending a huge amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The plaintiffs were interested to open a restaurant in the booth in question, but the defendants allowed one big sweet shop-cum-restaurant by the name of 'Kesar' in the residential area. They suffered heavy losses in the business. The plaintiffs came to know that the booth had been resumed by the administrative of the defendants without giving any opportunity to the plaintiffs of being heard on 4.2.1994. They have illegally and unlawfully issued Memo No. 2945 dated 14.11.1994 thereby threatening the plaintiffs to evict them forcibly from the disputed booth. The resumption of the booth is only on the ground of non-payment of instalments, which the plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay after deducting the interest and penalty. The plaintiffs requested the defendants many a times to withdraw the notice dated 14.11.1994 regarding eviction as well as the resumption order passed at their back, but they failed to give any satisfactory reply. On these allegations, the suit was filed.

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD.