HUDA Vs. RAJPAL DHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and respondent in person. The respondent was allotted a built-up booth No. 112, Pocket A, Mandi Township, Jhajjar in a public auction held on 27.2.2003. The terms and conditions of allotment letter inter alia casts liability of allottee to pay 11% interest on overdue instalments. Possession of booth was offered to respondent on 17.9:2004 which was followed by possession on 7.10.2004. Petitioner in view of stipulations made in allotment letter, raised demand for Rs. 74,462 that being 11% interest on delayed payment made by respondent which was paid by respondent. (Facts of RP 4314/2009) Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and respondent in person. The respondent was allotted a built-up booth No. 42, Pocket A, Mandi Township, Jhajjar in public auction held on 6.3.2003. The terms and conditions to the allotment letter inter alia enjoins liability of the allottee to pay 11% interest on overdue instalments. The possession of the booth was offered to respondent on 17.9.2004 which was followed by possession on 7.10.2004. The petitioner Authority in view of the stipulations made in allotment letter raised demand for Rs. 56,420 that being 11% interest on delayed payment made by respondent which was paid by respondent.

(2.) It was contended before Fora below and also in revision that since there was no provision of basic infrastructure around the locality, right of HUDA to claim interest on delayed payment had been completely extinguished and hence HUDA was not entitled to raise interest on delayed payment. Eventually a consumer complaint was filed with District Forum which was resisted by HUDA holding that if there was no provision of water supply, that was the job of P.H.E.D. which had already been moved. The District Forum however having over-ruled contentions raised on behalf of HUDA directed petitioner to refund payment to the respondent. The State Commission too dismissed appeal of petitioner/HUDA both for delayed filing of appeal and also on merit.

(3.) However the issue of allottee withholding instalment for non-development of locality and lack of basic infrastructure gets completely lost in view of authoritative decisions of Apex Court in the matter of UT Chandigarh Admn. and Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh and Ors., II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 736, in which following observations were made: