HUDA Vs. NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and respondents on admission.

(2.) Factual matrix are that respondents were allotted building No. 20, Sector 25 in Panipat on 18.11.1997 in public auction by HUDA against consideration of Rs. 17,07,000 following which 25% of consideration money was deposited by them. In terms of condition No. 5 of allotment letter to which my attention was drawn by learned Counsel for petitioner-authority, residual 75% of sale consideration was required to be deposited by respondents either in 60 days from the date of issuance of letter carrying no interest or in 8 half-yearly instalments along with 15% interest. Respodnents chose second option. However, they failed to adhere to payment schedule as per terms and conditions of allotment letter. A notice was eventually issued against respondents under Section 17 of the HUDA Act, asking them to pay amount of Rs. 19,93,770 as due on 31.5.2003 which was inclusive of instalments due, interest and also penalty. Aggrieved respondents filed a complaint with District Forum seeking relief for issuing direction to petitioner-authority to charge interest @ 9% per annum alone. Contention has been raised on behalf of respondents that despite all efforts on their part to seek detailed account to ascertain dues pending with them, no account was furnished by petitioner-authority. Claim of respondents was resisted by petitioner-authority before District Forum holding that since respondents have chosen second option, the respondents are liable under contract to pay interest @ 15% p.a. and also penal interest due on instalment.

(3.) Be that as it may, District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties, while accepting claim directed petitioner-authority to overhaul account petitioner by charging simple interest @ 12% due on instalments. Petitioner was also restrained from charging any penalty. It also directed that compliance of order be carried out within a period of thirty days. Aggrieved HUDA preferred appeal before State Commision and during pendency of proceeding State Commission disposed of appeal based on undertaking of learned Counsel for respondents which was in following terms: