Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Appellants in the first batch of cases and the respondents in the second batch (hereinafter referred to as the registrants) applied for allocation of flats under the SFS Scheme. The said scheme was floated in terms of Item No.112 of 1992. For the said purpose, brochures are issued. Those who desired to have allocation of such flats were asked to opt therefor at three different places. Allocation of flats under the said Scheme is made upon 90% payment of the estimated costs. However, allotment is made on draw of specific number of flats. Allocation of flats may be made in respect of areas, floors and/or the pockets. On receipt of the letter of demand-cum- allocation by the registrant, the schedule of payment commences. Estimated cost for construction is calculated on the basis of the value of the land and likely cost of constructions.

(vii) The purported cut-off date being 22.08.1996 creates a class between those whose allotments, although cancelled, had been restored on the terms of the contract and those who had applied for restoration thereafter.
(viii) As policy did not prescribe any rational basis and the same having wrongly been applied, the same is wholly without jurisdiction and, thus, a nullity.
(ix) Clause 5.10 of the brochure has wrongly been applied by the Full Bench insofar as value of the land and cost of construction were also existing in P.N. Verma (supra), R.K. Sacher (supra) and Premji Bhai Parmar (supra).

31. The Authority issues an invitation through its brochure.

32. The 5th SFS Scheme was announced in the year 1982. Any person could himself get registered upon payment of fees prescribed therefor. The brochure published by the Authority indicated the tentative cost of different flats in different scheme category-wise. Pursuant thereto, an intending allocattee applies thereunder, and if in the draw of lots he is declared successful, an allocation-cum-demand letter specifying the locality and the floor is communicated to him. It is not the case of the parties that the estimated cost or the tentative cost was the final one. The Authority indisputably has the jurisdiction to fix the disposal price finally upon taking into consideration all relevant factors. In terms of the letter of allotment the estimated price is to be paid in four equal instalments. Admittedly, question of the final cost is communicated to the registrants who is asked to pay the balance amount after deducting the payment made in four instalments together with the 5th instalment. The estimated cost, according to the Authority, itself should be worked out having regard to the following parameters.

78. It is well settled that a definite price is an essential element of a binding agreement. Although a definite price need not be stated in the contract, but assertion thereof either expressly or impliedly is imperative. Impugned Judgment :

79. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court has placed strong reliance on P.N. Verma (supra). One of the fundamental errors which has been committed by the Full Bench, with respect, is applying P.N. Verma (supra) without noticing the distinction between the provisions contained in the clauses of the Brochure in the present case and those obtaining therein. In the present case Clause 5.10 of the DDA Brochure stipulates that the price mentioned in the allocation letter is only the estimated price and it could be changed only on the basis of escalations in the price to be determined by DDA on the completion of flats. In P.N. Verma (supra), however, the price was to be fixed on allotment of flats. It gives rise to a lot of difference in determining the issue.