V P KAPOOR Vs. RAJ CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATYAWATI Dhawan is the owner of Plot No. 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi (hereinafter described 'the said property'). Satyawati entered into a contract on 4th September, 1979 with M/s. Competent Builders to build/develop the said property. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Raj Chopra and Narinder Anand, were the partners of the firm, Competent Builders. By virtue of the agreement and also the power of attorney the builders were empowered to sell space on ownership basis to the proposed multi-storeyed building which the builders were going to construct on the said premises. On 10th September, 1979, Competent Builders entered into an agreement with Ranjiv Malhotra, the complainant in Complaint Case No. 612 of 1991 for the allotment of a residential flat being flat No. 203 on the 2nd floor of the proposed multi-storeyed building. According to the letter of allotment Ranjiv Malhotra was to get a flat with a cover area of 1,700 sq. ft. The price fixed was Rs. 245/- per sq.-ft. Apparently, in the letter of allotment the area of the flat was worked out in terms of the covered area and not the super built area. The Competent Builders undertook to build the flats within two years from the date of sanction of the plan by the prescribed authority. According to the Competent Builders the plan was sanctioned sometime in 1981. A letter was sent by the Competent Builders to the prospective purchasers to that effect on 2.12.1981. Therefore, under the terms of the contract the flat should have been made available to the complainant by 2.12.1983.

(2.) UNFORTUNATELY , that did not happen. The grievance of the complainant is that 20% of the agreed amount i.e. Rs. 75,000/- was paid by Ranjiv Malhotra to the builders in terms of allotment. A further sum of Rs. 52,000/- was paid pursuant to the letter dated 2.12.1981 intimating the sanctioning of the plan by the Local Authority. The grievance of the complainant is that up to the date of filing of the complaint the builders had not even commenced construction and there was gross deficiency in service on their part.

(3.) IT was further agreed that the Competent Builders and its partners will have no interest, right and lien in respect of the said property. The power of attorney executed in pursuance of the said agreement was treated as cancelled. It was also recorded that the Competent Builders had delivered back vacant possession of the said premises to the owner. It was further agreed :