Shri Shambhu Dayal vs Delhi Development Authority

B.C. Patel, C.J.

CM Nos. 15285-86/2004

These applications are seeking recall of the order dated 17.2.2004 dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and for condensation of delay in preferring the applications.

For the reasons stated in the applications, the applications are allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number.

LPA No. 232/1997

The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.1997 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant challenging the costing of the flat allotted to him.

The appellant registered himself under the New Pattern Registration for 1979 and deposited the initial amount of Rs.4,500/-. The appellant was successful in the draw of lots held on 18.2.1991 and was issued an allotment-cum-demand letter dated 24.9.1991 allotting flat No. 455, First Floor, Mansarovar Park, Delhi at the cost of Rs.3,29,000/- on hire purchase basis. The appellant deposited the initial amount of Rs.1,09,175.54 and took possession of the flat in May, 1992. The appellant was required today hire purchase installments of Rs.3,366.75 each. The installments were to be paid commencing from 10.11.1991 in 120 installments. The appellant did not pay a penny of the hire purchase installments and filed a writ petition three years after taking possession of the flat in 1995.

Appellant appearing in person seeks to contend that the flats located in the locality had been allotted earlier at a cheaper rates and the appellant is entitled to allotment at the said rate.

In our considered view, this contention has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. In fact this issue is no more rest integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Pushipendra Kumr Jain, and in terms thereof it has been held that the costing has to be on the date of allotment unless there is inordinate delay in making the allotment. There is no such case of inordinate delay in making the allotment. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly relied on the judgment in the case Pushpendra Kumar Jain''s case (supra).

We are constrained to comment on the conduct of the appellant in having taken possession of the flat in pursuant to the demand-cum-allotment letter and thereafter not paying the hire purchase installments dishonestly. It appears that when the respondent would have taken steps for recovery of hire purchase installments, the appellant after a period of three years filed the writ petition.

The appeal is without any merit or substance and is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.