RAJIV MALHOTRA Vs. RAJ CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of both the above titled complaints as questions of facts and law raised are identical. The facts, as gathered from the records, are that Smt. Satyawati Dhawan is the owner of plot No.6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi. She entered into an agreement with M/s. Competent Builders, hereinafter referred to as the Builders. By virtue of the said agreement and the Power of Attorney, the builders were empowered to sell "space" on ownership basis in the proposed mult-storyed building which the builders were to construct on the said plot. It may be mentioned here that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 herein are partners of the said builder's firm. Rajiv Malhotra (complainant in Complaint Case No. C-12 of 1991) entered into an agreement on 10.9.79 with the builders for the allotment of residential flat No.203 on second floor. As per allotment letter, Rajiv Malhotra was allotted covered area of 1700 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.245/- per square ft. According to the complainant there was no clause about escalation in price in the allotment letter and the area to be worked out was in terms of covered area and not 'super area'.

(2.) The builders were supposed to build the flats within two years of the sanction of the plans by the prescribed authorities. As per Clause 4 of the allotment letter 20% of the agreed amount, i. e. Rs.75.000/-, was paid by Rajiv Malhotra to the builder's firm and Rs.52,000/- was paid to them as per their letter dated 2.12.81, intimating that the plans have been sanctioned. Upto the date of filing of the complaint, the builders had not commenced construction and thus, the latter earned interest on the payments made by the complainant.

(3.) It was further the case of Rajiv Malhotra that he learnt through the letters dated 14.8.90 and 14.11.90 of Sh. H. D. Shourie and of opposite party No.3 M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. , that the project had been taken over by the opposite party No.3 from the builders and that they had entered into a second agreement with the owner of the plot. Complainant Rajiv Malhotra has not been formally informed by either of the opposite parties. He has visited the office of all the opposite parties several times to confirm about the fact but none of them was ready to show the said agreement. The complainant, Rajiv Malhotra, had also come to know from the letter dated 14.8.90 of Sh. H. D. Shourie that opposite party No.3 is demanding Rs.350/- per square ft. and that too on the basis of super area, though according to the original agreement the said complainant was liable to pay only @ Rs.245/-per sq. ft. for "covered area". As per letter dated 25.8.90, the opposite party No.3 was prepared to give credit of the amount paid by the complainant i. e. , Rs.1,27,500/-but it was not giving any credit of Rs.6,02,245/- earned by the original builders as interest from the period September 1979 till date of complaint. The complainant also quoted the rates of construction of CPWD prevailing in the year 1979 and those current on the date of the complaint. The complainant further alleged that as per current rates of CPWD, the present cost of the flat came to Rs.10,12,095/- and that he was prepared to pay that amount provided adjustment is given for the amount of Rs.1,27,500 /- paid by him as principal amount plus Rs.6,02,245 /- on account of interest earned by the original builders. His further contention was that he was entitled to "covered area" as distinguished from super area in terms of the original agreement. He, therefore, prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay interest for 11 years on the amount collected by them and give credit for the same and allot the agreed covered area and not the super area and charge Rs.595.35 per square ft. as per extent CPWD rates.