JAI SHREE TANGER Vs. SUPERTECH LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant booked a residential Villa with the opposite party in a project namely "Supertech Up Country"? which the OP was to develop in Sector-17A of Yamuna Expressway. Vide allotment letter dated 14.5.2013, Unit No.0026 in Block S-3 of the project was allotted to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.12007342/-. As per Clause 1 of the terms and conditions of the said letter, the possession was to be delivered to the complainant in August 2013 though the said period could be extended upto a maximum of six months due to unforeseen circumstances. Subsequently, the opposite party issued another allotment letter dated 28.8.2014 to the complainant for the same unit, wherein the consideration was reduced to Rs.11987342/- though the basic sale price was the same. There was a reduction to the extent of Rs.20,000/- since the power back up was not included in the sale price shown in the second allotment letter. As per Clause 1 of the terms and conditions of the second allotment letter the possession was to be given in December 2014 and again a period of six months was available to the developer in the event of unforeseen circumstances.

(2.) Since the possession of the allotted unit was not offered to him, the complainant approached this Commission seeking possession of the said unit with compensation etc.

(3.) The case of the complainant is that he having lost the first allotment letter dated 14.5.2013 had requested the opposite party to issue a duplicate allotment letter but they issued the allotment letter dated 28.8.2014. The opposite party has itself filed a copy of an affidavit taken from the complainant in which he has clearly stated that the allotment letter issued to him on 16.4.2013 had been lost by him and he requested the opposite party to issue a duplicate copy of the allotment letter. The opposite party in my opinion was not justified in issuing an allotment letter bearing a later date when the complainant had sought only a duplicate copy of the allotment letter dated 16.4.2013. Though it is stated by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the parties had renegotiated the matter on account of default on the part of the complainant in making payment which had led to issuance of a cancellation notice dated 20.2.2013, the said plea cannot be accepted since even the allotment letter of 13.4.2013 was issued later than the cancellation notice dated 20.2.2013. After issuance of the allotment letter dated 13.4.2013, there was no renegotiation between the parties and therefore, the issuance of allotment letter bearing a later date was not justified and obviously it was done only with a view to extend the last date for delivery of the possession of the allotted unit to the complainant. Though there was a reduction of Rs.20,000/- in the aggregate sale price that happened because of power back up having been withdrawn while issuing the second allotment letter and there was no change in the basic sale price of the unit which was allotted to the complainant. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that in terms of the allotment letter dated 13.4.2013, the opposite party was under an obligation to deliver possession of the allotted unit to the complainant latest by February 2014 even after giving benefit of the grace period of six months which was available in the event of unforeseen circumstances.