TAJINDER SINGH JOLLY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today the case is fixed for final hearing. There is no representation or appearance on behalf of the respondent. There is no request also for an adjournment. We have heard the applicant who is present in person and perused the Court record. The complaint of the applicant is that he applied for a flat under the Special Self-Financing Scheme-II and was allotted Flat No.130 in Desh Bandhu Apartments in January, 1985. The total cost of the flat intimated to him was Rs.1,46,000/- inclusive of the cost of scooter garage. Our attention has been drawn to the Brochure issued by the respondent, inviting application from 1.3.1982 to 31.3.1982 for the Special Self-Financing Schemes in different residential areas.

(2.) The applicant's grievance is that he was allotted a flat under above mentioned scheme and the cost of the scooter garage was included in the cost of the flat. In support of his above contention, he has drawn our attention to Condition No.3 contained in the Brochure wherein it is specifically mentioned that "scooter garage where available will be allotted as part of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor flats for which the cost has already been included in the cost of the flat". The applicant's case is that he was allotted a flat on 2nd floor and, therefore, he is entitled to allotment of the scooter garage without any extra charges.

(3.) The respondent in the affidavit of evidence tendered by Shri B. N. Singh, Director-1 (Housing) has not disputed the facts of the case enumerated above except that it has been contended therein that the demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of the scooter garage was issued to the applicant vide letter No. F-48 (11)82/sfs dated 21.3.1985 and the fact that a separate allotment letter for scooter garage was issued goes to show that cost of the same was worked out separately and was not included in the cost of the flat. This averment of the respondent does not appear to be tenable as it is not borne out by the relevant condition outlined in the Brochure which clearly and unmistakably stipulates that scooter garages wherever available will be allotted to the allottees of flats and cost of the same is included in the cost of the flat. It is not explained by the respondent as to how the conditions pertaining to the cost and allotment of the scooter garage can be ignored or lost sight of particularly when allotment and cost of the flats and scooter garage is governed by the terms and conditions spelt out in the Brochure and applications for allotment of flats under the Special Self-Financing Scheme were invited in the light of the Brochure issued by the respondent. The demand for payment of the cost of the scooter garage contrary to the representation made by the respondent in the Brochure tantamounts to a false representation and constitutes an unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36a (1) of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief ). In view of the above, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondent is guilty of adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices.