JALIL AHMED Vs. ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant booked a residential unit with the opposite party in a project namely 'Ansals Amantre' which the opposite party was to develop in Sector 88-A of Gurgaon. The first payment to the opposite party was made vide cheque dated 012.2014 for Rs.9, 50, 000/- and a receipt dated 112.2014 was issued to him by the opposite party, acknowledging the aforesaid payment. The first payment was followed by subsequent payments dated 10.2015, acknowledged vide receipt dated 12.2015, payment dated 13.2015, acknowledged vide receipt dated 12.3.2015 and payment dated 12.3.2015, acknowledged vide receipt dated 16.3.2015. Thereafter payment was made on 28.5.2015, which was acknowledged vide receipt dated 29.5.2015, followed by two more payments dated 30.5.2015, acknowledged vide two separate receipts dated 35.2015. The parties executed an agreement dated 20.3.2015, acknowledging their respective obligations in respect of the aforesaid transactions. The aforesaid agreement to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

(2.) The complainant submitted an application on 29.6.2017, seeking to surrender the booking made by him and demanding payment @ Rs.7, 850/- per sq. ft. as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. Since payment in terms of the aforesaid application was not made, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party on January 14, 2018. The notice was replied by the opposite party on 15.3.2018. In the reply to the legal notice of the complainant, the opposite party maintained that the date of booking in this case was 11.12014 and therefore thirty months' time frame for changing the option of surrendering the unit was due on or before 10.6.2017.

(3.) Thus the only question involved in this complaint is as to what exactly was the date of booking of the flat by the complainant in the above referred project of the opposite party. Relying upon the first line of the payment schedule recorded in Clause-3 of the agreement, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the date of booking was 10.1.2015 and this was agreed to by both the parties. I however, find myself unable to accept the contentions. If the while of the schedule given in Clause-3 of the agreement is read, it is evident that 10.1.2015 was mistakenly mentioned as the time of booking in the aforesaid clause. It is an admitted position that the first payment was made by the complainant vide cheque dated 01.12.2014, acknowledged vide receipt dated 11.12.2014. The aforesaid receipt dated 11.12.2014 clearly shows that the payment was made as advance in Ansals Amantre, Sector-88 A. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the flat in the aforesaid project was booked on 11.12.2014 and not on 10.1.2015. The payment schedule relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant also provides for 10% of the payment to be made within 90 days from the booking date i.e. on or before 11.2015 and another 10% within 180 days from booking date i.e. on or before 09.6.2015. Computed in terms of the aforesaid payment schedule, it is evident that the date of booking was 11.12.2014 and not 10.01.2015. Ninety days from the booking date on 11.2015 would expire only if the booking date is 11.12.2014. Similarly, 180 days from the booking date would expire on 09.6.2015 only if the booking date is 11.12.2014. I am therefore, satisfied that the flat in question as booked on 11.12.2014 only and therefore, the buyback option was not available to the complainant on 29.06.2017, however, such a request was made for the first time. It appears to me that the complainant is trying to take undue advantage of a bonafide mistake in Clause-3 of the agreement where the date of booking was inadvertently recorded as 10.1.2015 instead of 11.12.2014, while referring to 15% of the payment.