AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NOTWITHSTANDING the earnest efforts made by Ms. Priya Jetli, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, we are unable to find any merit in the contentions advanced in the appeal. The order passed by the State Commission is legal and proper. The demand made by the Delhi Development Authority for extra payment for the alternative flat that is offered to the respondent herein in lieu of the flat originally allotted to him which could not be put in his possession on account of a mistake committed by their officer is manifestly unreasonable and cannot be allowed. The State Commission was, therefore, fully justified in directing the Delhi Development Authority to provide the alternative flat to the respondent herein at the same price which had been already deposited by him pursuant to the original allotment. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed with costs which we fix at Rs. 2,000/-.
MR . Y. Krishan, Memberï I agree. I would like to add that in my opinion, this is a fit case where the appellant Delhi Development Authority should recover, in accordance with the orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta in C.A. No. 6237 of 1990 (S.L.P. (C) Nos. 659/91,16842/92 C.A. Nos. 3963/89, 5534/90, &236/90,5257/90,2954/92) decided on November 5,1993, the loss caused to it by having had to allot an alternative flat to the respondent at the same price as was payable for the flat originally allotted and also the costs of this litigation from those who were ponsible for having given possession of the fiat to somebody else.