AJAY KHURANA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed for refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner with the respondents for allotment of his plot.

(2.) The respondents advertised the allotment of residential plots in the Sectors 31 and 32-A and in some other Sectors in Gurgaon. In response to this advertisement, the petitioner made an application for allotment of a plot on August 25, 1988 and also deposited for allotment of a plot on August 25, 1988 and also deposited a sum of Rs. 5468/- a earnst money along with his application. As number of applications had been received for allotment of plots, the respondents allotted plots by draw of lots and the petitioner was unsuccessful in the draw of lots and therefore, he could not be allotted the plot. Thereafter, the respondents advertised that those applicants who were unsuccessful in draw of lots may either apply for refund of amount or may opt for allotment in future by keeping the earnest money in deposit with the respondents. The petitioner opted to withdraw the money deposited by him. It appears that a cheque of Rs. 5468/- was prepared in the name of one Ashok Kumar Gulati inadvertently on June 15, 1990, and it was encashed by him. Thus, the petitioner did not get the amount. Therefore, the petitioner issued notice to the respondents on March 28, 1993, claiming refunded of the earnest money deposited by him with interest at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum. As the respondents did not refund the amount to the petitioner, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) Admittedly, the respondents refunded the earnest money of Rs. 5468/- to the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition. The only point to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of earnest money deposited by him with the respondents. There is no dispute of the fact that the terms and conditions of allotment do not provide any payment of interest on the amount of earnest money deposited in case the applicant does not get the plot allotted. Therefore, it is clear that agreement does not provide any interest on the amount deposited. There cannot be any dispute that when once the plot could not be allotted to the petitioner, the amount deposited by him with the respondents becomes a debt payable by the respondents to the petitioner. Under Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, "The Court may allow interest to the person entitled to the debt:-