DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJESH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Along with this Appeal, an application for condonation of delay has been filed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents on caveat does not object to the same. In view of this and for the reasons disclosed in the application, the delay is condoned. Arguments heard on Revision Petition. 1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that she challenges the impugned order on three counts: firstly, the Forum below have not dealt with the objection of the Petitioner that the Complaint was barred by limitation since it was filed beyond the period of limitation of two years when the demand letter was duly served upon the allottee, secondly, that the finding of the lower Forum that the letter of demand was not served upon the allottee is not correct since it is based on the fact that the Petitioner could not produce the documents showing the due service of demand letter upon the allottee and thirdly, that the grant of compensation of 2 Lakhs is towards higher side because it is the allottee who had defaulted in making the payments. On these contentions, it is argued that the impugned order be set aside.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the findings of the Forum below are based on the documents and evidence produced by both the parties and this Commission has no jurisdiction to re-assess and re-appreciate the findings and then to reach to a different conclusion on facts than what has been arrived at by the Forum below. It is submitted that there is a concurrent finding of the fact that the demand letter was never served upon the Respondent and secondly, the cancellation of the allotment was found to be bad in law. It is further submitted that the Respondent who is in litigation with the Petitioner since 2005 and the booking was made in 1989, and that in view of these facts, the awarded compensation cannot be said to be on higher side.

(3.) We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.