S K GUPTA Vs. NAGAR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief relevant facts necessary to be mentioned for determining the point in controversy are that the complainant in pursuance of sixth Self Financing Scheme for residential Complex below Bishop Cotton School, Phase-11, Kasumpti, New Shimla, applied for the allotment of plot Type-B category. The plot, according to the complainant, was required to be delivered to the complainant within one year from floating of the Scheme although this is disputed by the opposite party. The possession of the plot, according to the complainant, was delivered by the opposite party on 18.4.96 and the lease deed was also executed with the opposite party on 18.4.96. The complaint was filed afterwards on 8.5.96. There is no material on record to show that possession was taken over under the lease deed under protest.

(2.) The fundamental question raised by the opposite party which requires our consideration is whether the complainant after taking over the possession of the plot and entering into the lease deed agreement, can be heard to say that there has been unnecessary delay in the development of plot.

(3.) This precise question has been considered by the National Commission in Sarthak Behuria and Another V/s. The Orissa State Housing Board,1993 3 CPJ 384 whereby the National Commission by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premji Bhai Parmar and Others V/s. Delhi Development Authority and Others, 1980 AIR(SC) 738, has observed in para 12 of the judgment as follows : "moreover after taking possession of the houses the complainants cannot be heard to say that there has been unreasonable delay in the construction of houses. In this context, reference to Premji Bhai Parmar and Others V/s. Delhi Development Authority and Others, 1980 AIR(SC) 738 will be useful. The Court remarked : "they were advised by the brochures to look at the flats before going in for the same. They were lucky enough to get allotment when the lots were drawn. Each one of them was allotted a flat and he paid the price voluntarily. They are now trying to wriggle out by an invidious method so as to get back a part of the purchase price not offering to return the benefit under the contract, namely, surrender of flat. The Authority in its affidavit in reply in terms stated that it is willing to take back the flats and to repay them the full price. The transaction is complete, viz. , possession of the flat is taken and price is paid. At a later stage when they are secure in possession with title, petitioners are trying to get back a part of the purchase price and thus trying to re-open and wriggle out of a concluded contract only partially".