LAJYA GUPTA Vs. SHAM SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the time-frame within which a contract betwixt a promoter-builder and his purchaser is to be executed, in the total absence of any specific agreed period, therefor? This has come to be the core question in this complaint.

(2.) Admittedly Opposite Party No.1 Shri Sham Sunder is the sole promoter-cum-partner of Swastik Vihar which is a residential-cum-commercial complex on the outskirts of Chandigarh in Panchkula. Way back in the end of 1987, the complainant Smt. Lajya Gupta applied for a house at Swastik Vihar on a 10 marlas plot with a total built up area of 1250 sq. ft. thereon. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid as earnest money vide receipt P1 dated the 28th of December, 1987. On 4.1.1988 the opposite parties vide Annexure P-2 communicated the terms and conditions for the said house stating that the price thereof was to be Rs.2.95 lacs and expressly confirmed that House No.68 had been duly allotted to her and requested her to further deposit a sum of Rs.65,000/- which was done vide receipt Annexure P-3 dated the 10th of March, 1988. According to the terms and conditions, the balance amount was to be paid in six half yearly equal instalments and it is common ground that the complainant thereafter paid three more instalments of Rs.36,666/- each vide Annexures P-5 to P-7, the last being dated the 8th of December, 1989.

(3.) It is the complainant's case that despite the passage of nearly two years and the payment of the aforesaid amounts and also the extensive advertising done by the promoter-builder with regard to the complex, no development whatsoever was actually done at the site by Opposite Party No.2 Swastik Construction. Instead vide communication dated the 12th of April, 1990 (Annexure P-8) the plot holders in the complex were summoned to a meeting to be held on the 21st of April, 1990 including the complainant. In the said meeting Shri Vinod Sharma, the owner of the Piccadily Hotel and Piccadily Enterprises informed the anxious allottees/investors including the complainant that the Haryana Government has levied external development charges on the complex and the promoters have moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the same. Later vide another communication dated the 14th of March, 1990 (Annexure P-9), the complainant was informed that the levy of the aforesaid charges had been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court and that a further meeting was to be held to arrive at some definite conclusion. However, to the complainant's surprise, vide Annexure P-11 dated the 14th of November, 1990 the opposite party demanded a remittance of Rs.73,332/- forthwith. On receipt thereof the complainant repeatedly attempted to contact the opposite party, but they refused to hear anything and said that whatever she wanted to say she should put the same in writing and it would appear that subsequently a fresh letter of demand was despatched vide Annexure P-12 dated the 25th of February, 1991. In reply to these communications the complainant sent a detailed letter Annexure P-13, wherein she highlighted that under the contract, the construction work should have been commensurate with the payments made, whereas in her case nothing whatsoever has been done and even the foundations had yet to be dug up. It was pointed out that she had been assured that she would be given possession of the house within two years of the date of the allotment. She further indicated that she had no objection to make the balance of the payment provided the promoters share with her the exact situation with regard to the viability of the complex and the time and date when she would be given the possession of her house.