Delhi High Court
Veer Singh Gautam And Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority on 19 July, 2007
Author: S. Muralidhar
Bench: S. Muralidhar
ORDER S. Muralidhar, J.
1. These petitions have been filed by three petitioners. The first two are residents of flats in Sector 13, Pocket-B, Dwarka, New Delhi. The third petitioner is a Resident Welfare Association of the same area. The prayer in this writ petition is that the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') should be directed to defer the payment of Installments/hire charges of the flats till December 2004 and that the Installments should be charged only from January 2005.
2. One sample demand letter enclosed indicates that the allottees of flats in the said Sector 13-B were required to deposit a certain sum by 31.3.2002. The payment of the balance amount in 120 monthly Installments of Rs. 6,725/- each was to start from 10.2.2002 onwards.
3. It is not disputed that the possession of the flats has been handed over. Pursuant to an order dated 18.10.2005 passed by this Court, the flat holders have been paying their Installments.
4. The controversy centers around the availability of basic amenities like electricity, water, street lights, roads, drinking water etc. According to the petitioners, although these basic amenities are now available they were not available when the possession of the flats was handed over and definitely not on the date that the payment of Installments was to begin i.e. 10.2.2002. They point out that even as on 9.12.2003 electricity was not available in the area. A reference was made to a note of the concerned official of BSES Rajdhani Power Limited on 9.12.2003 which notes that even as on that date the electrification of DDA Pockets in Dwarka, including Sector 13-B, had not been completed.
5. The DDA has in its counter affidavit denied that the electricity was not available in the flats on the date that they were handed over to the allottees. Further, a letter dated 22.1.2002 issued by the Delhi Vidyut Board ('DVB') confirming that the electrical installation having being energized in Sector 13-B on 16.12.2001 has been placed on record. Likewise, it is claimed that all civic amenities were also available on the date possession of the flats was given.
6. To this Court it is apparent that these petitions involve disputed questions of fact. While the note dated 9.12.2003 of BSES Rajdhani Power Limited suggests that electrification of some of DDA pockets in Dwarka including Sector 13-B is still not completed, the letter dated 22.1.2002 of the DVB indicates otherwise. It will be extremely difficult in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for this Court to determine precisely which flats in the entire Sector 13- B, Dwarka received electricity and from which date. The DDA has placed on record an electricity bill which shows that one of the flats in Sector 13-B was having electricity even as on May, 2002. Then again, depending on the factual position, the question of deferment, if any, of the Installments will have to be determined flat-wise.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Surender Singh Oberoi v. Delhi Development Authority 2002 V AD (DELHI) 592 where the question considered was whether it was permissible for this Court to give indulgence to those who have not conformed to the schedule relating to payments. The Full Bench took note of a policy decision 11.1.2002 of the DDA to the effect that in hire purchase cases the monthly Installments are deferred till the basic amenities are available. The Full Bench thereafter observed as under:
We would not like to lay down any strait jack formula in this regard so as to circumscribe or limit the discretion, which is to be exercised by the Court in appropriate cases in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
8. The above decision does not really help the the petitioners here since the Full Bench of this Court in fact declined to lay down any strait jacket formula in the matter.
9. Given the nature of the disputes it is clear that their adjudication will involve leading of evidence and examination of records. The present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are not appropriate for the purpose. It will, however, be open to the petitioners to seek any other appropriate remedies available to them in law. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.