Delhi High Court
Veena Saxena vs Delhi Development Authority on 15 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: 47(1992)DLT266
Author: Y.K. Sabharwal
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal
JUDGMENT Sunanda Bhandare, J.
(1) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the D.D.A. was estopped from demanding payment in lump sum for a flat which was registered under the Registration Scheme on New Pattern 1979 (for short Scheme) of intending purchasers of flats to be constructed by the Delhi Development Authority. It is further submitted that the respondent has made a demand at escalated price which is not payable by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Delhi Development Authority has not stated the total number of flats allotted by them under the Scheme on Hire Purchase basis or on Cash Down basis. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in D.D.A. Flats App. Association v. Delhi Development Authority, 1987 Rlr 514 and submitted that the question raised by him is directly covered by the judgment of this Court.
(2) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that under the Scheme itself 40% of the M.I.G. flats were to be allotted on Cash Down basis and 60% of the flats on Hire Purchase basis. The Delhi Development Authority has allotted flats by draw of lots of the flats through computers as and when the flats were ready and 40% of the M.I.G. flats were allotted on Cash Down basis and 60% of the flats on Hire Pruchase basis as per Priority Nos. of the registrants. It is further submitted that under the contract, the petitioner was liable to pay escalated price depending upon the exigencies of layout, costs of construction etc. (3) We find that under clause 10 of the Scheme itself 40% of theM.I.G. flats were to be allotted on Cash Down basis and 60% of the flats on Hire Purchase basis. There is thus no, assurance given to any registrant that he will be allotted a flat on Hire Purchase basis. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Clause 16 of the Scheme gives an option to the registrant to choose the mode of payment. Infact, it is submitted that the petitioner had registered himself for allotment of flat on Hire Purchase basis and, therefore, he cannot be asked to pay the amount in lump sum. We are unable to agree with this contention. We have seen the original application form submitted by the petitioner at the time of the registration. There is no such column in the form which would give an indication that the registrant has opted for purchase of the flat on Hire Purchase basis.
(4) In Dda Flat App. Association's case, the Delhi Development Authority had changed the Scheme and abandoned proposal of allotment of flats on Hire Purchase basis. In the present case, the Scheme for allotment of flats on Hire Purchase basis has not been abandoned and as and when the flats are ready a draw of lots is held and 40% of the flats are allotted on CashDown Basis and 60% of the flats on Hire Purchase Basis.
(5) It is further submitted that the Delhi Development Authority has not stated the total number of flats allotted by them under the Scheme on Hire Purchase Basis or on Cash Down basis.
(6) In our view it was not necessary for the respondent to give these particulars in the counter-affidavit because no such averment has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition and moreover the draw of lots is made atthe time of allotment of flats after the flats are ready in particular areas or when they are nearing completion. The Delhi Development Authority had announced in the Scheme itself that they will be constructing flats at several places mentioned in the Scheme. The total number of flats that would beconstructed under the Scheme has not been mentioned in the Scheme and since there is no such averment in the writ petition, the Delhi Development Authority was not required to give these details in the counter-affidavit.
(7) As regards the question of payment on escalated rates, we find that Clause 14 of the Scheme specifically states that the plinth area of theflats indicated and the estimated prices mentioned in the brochure are illustrative and are subject to revision/modification depending upon the exigencies of lay out, cost of construction etc. The petitioner has entered into a contract with the Delhi Development Authority being fully aware of the terms and conditions of the contract.
(8) A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Bareilly Development Authority & Another v. Ajay Pal Singh &Others, Jt 1989 (1) 368. The Supreme Court has held that the registrant after accepting the conditions imposed had entered into a contract, even though the contract is with the State, it is non-statutory and the parties are governed bythe terms of the contract and no writ would lie.
(9) This point raised by the petitioner, is thus clearly covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bareily Development Authorit y's case(supra).
(10) For the above-mentioned reasons we are not inclined to interfere.Dismissed. The petitioner has not made payment as per demand in view ofthe pendency of the writ petition. Therefore, we direct that on application being made by the petitioner for extension of time, the respondent will grant usual extension of time for payment on usual terms. No costs.