DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. S S SIDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delhi Development Authority (for short, the DDA), Petitioner herein which was the Opposite Party, has filed this Revision Petition against the judgment/Order dated 9.5,2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission), Delhi passed in Appeal No. 311/2007 by which the State Commission upheld the Order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) Petitioner vide demand-cum-allocation letter dated 8th January, 1988/15th January, 1988 allocated a flat to Respondent- Complainant in Vasant Kunj at an estimated cost of Rs. 3,39,600 . 90% of this estimated cost was to be paid in four instalments as per schedule given in the demand letter. Fourth instalment was due on 15.7.1989, but it was deferred by the Petitioner to 29.2.1992. Respondent paid this instalment on 24.3.1992 after a delay of 24 days. On account of this delayed payment, Petitioner considered the allocation cancelled "automatically" and the name of the Respondent was not included in the draw of lots for allotment of a specific flat.

(3.) Respondent being aggrieved filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 216/93 in the High Court of Delhi. By way of interim order, High Court directed the Petitioner to keep one flat reserved for Respondent. During the hearing on 27.9.1993 in the High Court, it was mutually agreed between the parties that Respondent shall pay interest and cancellation charges and Petitioner shall inform Respondent of the details of the flat reserved for him in terms of the interim Order passed by the High Court. During the hearing on 7th December, 1993 in the High Court, Respondent tendered Pay Orders for the balance amount due towards the cost of the flat as well as the restoration charges. Counsel for the Petitioner sought time for filing affidavit for calculation of the cost of the flat. The affidavit was never filed by Petitioner. On 9th February, 1996. High Court was informed by the Parties that Respondent had made a representation to the DDA and the DDA was considering the same and Respondent was hopeful of settlement out of Court. Thereafter, parties stopped appearing before the High Court and ultimately Writ Petition was dismissed in default on 14.10.1996.