Shri S.C. Jain vs Delhi State and Infrastructural Development Corporation Ltd.

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The challenge by means of this Regular Second Appeal u/s 100 Code of Civil Procedure, is to the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court dated 14.2.2011, and by which judgment the Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the present Respondent and dismissed the suit of the present Appellant/Plaintiff, and by which suit effectively the Appellant wanted allotment of a plot in his own name instead of an allotment in the name of M/s. Pramod Engineering Works, a sole proprietary concern of his son Sh. Pramod Kumar.

The facts of the case are that the Respondent issued a letter dated 7.5.2004 allotting a plot to M/s Pramod Engineering Works on account of the policy of relocation. M/s Pramod Engineering Works was asked to make payment for the plot of 100 sq. meters at the rate of Rs. 4200/- per sq. meters within 60 days from the allotment letter dated 7.5.2004 and thereafter for another 45 days with interest at 18%. This allotment letter was responded to on behalf of M/s Pramod Engineering Works by the present Plaintiff/Sh. S.C. Jain, who is the father of Sh. Pramod Kumar. The Appellant/Plaintiff, by his letter dated 6.7.2004 informed the Respondent that he would be ready to deposit the amount only if possession of the plot was handed over to Sh. S.C. Jain/Plaintiff. The Respondent, in response, wrote a letter dated 15.9.2004 requesting for certain documents and the last of the document which was required was that the Appellant should give an affidavit that he is making the payment on behalf of his son as his guardian. Therefore, by this letter, the Respondent made it clear that the allotment would be only to M/s Pramod Engineering Works whose sole proprietor was Sh. Pramod Kumar and payment of the same is accepted from Sh. S.C. Jain on behalf of his son as his guardian. No payment was made by Sh. S.C. Jain after submitting the documents vide letter dated 12.10.2004 and which led to the Respondent issuing notices for payment failing which for cancellation dated 7.2.2005, 17.4.2006, 18.5.2006 and final dated 23.5.2006. This resulted in the Appellant/S.C. Jain filing the subject suit in June, 2006, in which it was prayed, inter alia, for allotment of the plot in the name of the Appellant.

Though certain issues were raised before the trial court with respect to failure of the Appellant to make the payment within time and the consequent cancellation, however, the only issue which was decided by the Appellate Court and is also an issue before me is, whether the Appellant is entitled to allotment of the plot in place of his son Sh. Pramod Kumar. On 4.4.2011, a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed personal appearance of Sh. Pramod Kumar and also for the Respondent to consider the proposal for allotment in the name of Sh. S.C. Jain/Plaintiff. On 30.5.2011, it was recorded that Sh. Pramod Kumar was not present as per the direction in the order dated 4.4.2011 and the counsel for the Respondent stated that there is no policy for allotment to a person other than the person who was entitled to a plot in terms of the relocation scheme.

A reference to the prayer made in the plaint and also the correspondence exchanged shows that the Plaintiff was insisting on allotment in his personal name before making payment of the price. The basic issue of relocation would be that the person who is carrying out business in a non-conforming area will stop his business in a non-conforming area and will shift to the conforming area where a plot is allotted. Once Sh. Pramod Kumar who was carrying on the business of M/s Pramod Engineering Works is found to be of unsound mind, there would not arise the position of said Sh. Pramod Kumar carrying on business in the alternative plot allotted in the conforming area. As stated by the Respondent, there is no question of substitution of a family member, in his own right, including of a father, in place of an original allottee. 5. Accordingly, in my opinion, there does not arise any issue of allotment of a plot directly in the name of the Plaintiff/Sh. S.C. Jain, as per the relief claimed in the plaint. The issue with regard therefore of failure to make the payment or that not being a formal cancellation letter, is really irrelevant. 6. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises because there cannot be allotment of a plot in the name of the substitutee as per the policy of the Respondent. Admittedly, the suit does not claim the relief of allotment of the plot in the name of Sh. Pramod Kumar. There is therefore no merit in the appeal and the applications which are accordingly dismissed. 7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Respondent be directed to refund a sum of approximately Rs. 43,000/- which was deposited by the Appellant/Plaintiff with the Respondent. Accordingly, let the Respondent refund whatever amount has been deposited by Sh. S.C. Jain with it within a period of two months from today along with the interest at 6% per annum from the date when the amount was deposited with the Respondent by the Appellant/Plaintiff.