DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SANTOSH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the Delhi Development Authority (hereafter, 'the DDA') challenges the order dated 27th November 2009 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission'). By this order, the State Commission has affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum V (North West District), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (in short, 'the District Forum'), by which the District Forum had directed the DDA to allow conversion of the tenure of the shop purchased by the complainant (petitioner herein) from the original allottees under the scheme of conversion of lease-hold property to free-hold by charging conversion fee on the basis of floor area of the shop i.e., 8.61 sq. mtrs and also to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant for causing him harassment and mental agony.

(2.) The facts are that the DDA had allotted the shop in question to Shri Ramesh Gupta and Smt Pushpa Gupta in an auction in November 1987. The physical possession of the shop, which included a mezzanine and a ground floor, was handed over to the said allottees by the DDA on payment of charges indicated in the DDA's demand letter dated 23rd December 1987. In this demand letter, the area of the shop was mentioned as 17.31 sq. mtrs, i.e., inclusive of the areas of both the ground and the mezzanine floors. The original allottees sold this shop to the complainant/ respondent through Power of Attorney in October 2003. The complainant applied for conversion of the shop from lease-hold to free-hold rights in February 2004. The DDA intimated the charges for conversion at Rs.46,882/- for the area of the shop including the ground and mezzanine floors. In February 2004, however, the complainant deposited Rs.7,053/- on account of ground rent and interest for the area of 8.61 sq. mtrs and also filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the DDA, because the latter was not justified in charging the conversion fee for the mezzanine floor of the shop. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission as noticed above. It is against this order of the State Commission that the DDA has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) (i) I have heard Mrs. Girija Wadhwa, learned counsel for the DDA and Mr. Jai Kumar Jain, authorised representative of the complainant/ respondent.