DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAMA SHANKAR JOHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent was a registrant under the new pattem 79 Scheme. He was allotted an L. I. G. Flat No.92, Pocket-4, Block-B, Sector 18, Rohini on the basis of draw held on 18.1.1990 on hire purchase basis. The respondent deposited 25,808.38 being initial deposit on 25.4.1990 and two instalments under the hire purchase arrangement were deposited on 7.6.1990 and 17.8.1990. The case of the complainant was that he had sent the requisite documents, namely, the original fixed deposit receipt, receipt regarding registration money, proof of deposit of first instalment and affidavit under certificate of posting by his letter dated 2.5.1990 to the office of DDA. However, on opposite party's office a note was put up to the effect that the respondent had neither deposited the amount nor furnished documents and the allotment was, therefore, liable to be cancelled. The letter of cancellation was signed on 11.9.1990. A day earlier i. e.10.9.1990, the complainant wrote another letter and put the same in the course of transmission sending copies of documents which had earlier been submitted vide letter dated 2.5.1990. He made a representation that in the circumstances, he had not committed any default and the allotment could not be cancelled. Having failed to receive any relief, he filed the instant complaint. On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum held that the complainant had complied with the conditions of the allotment by making timely deposit and furnishing documents and the allotment could not be cancelled. Accordingly it was directed that the complainant be allotted a flat in the same vicinity and at the same price alongwith compensation/costs amounting to Rs.2,000/-. The opposite party, DDA, feels aggrieved and hence this appeal.

(2.) We have gone through the records and have heard Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

(3.) The fate of this appeal turns on the question whether the complainant had sent the original documents alongwith his letter dated 2.5.1990 which was posted under certificate of posting. Apart from the assertion of the complaint that he had sent the documents by the aforesaid letter, there are certain irrefutable pieces of circumstancial evidence. These having been noted by the District Forum, a presumption of delivery arises as the letter was sent under certificate of posting. Undertaking on a stamped paper which was sent along with other documents had been attested by Notary Public on 2.5.1990. The other documents attested were affidavit, and photograph by the Notary Public. These documents could not be created in a back date. There was no reason to believe that the complainant was not keen to complete the formalities and take possession as he had already made the initial deposit and had paid Rs.25,808.38 on 25.4.1990. His subsequent conduct after the posting of the letter alongwith documents also points in the same direction inasmuch as the complainant deposited two instalments on 7.6.1990 and 17.8.1990. Lastly even before the letter of cancellation had been signed in the office of DDA, the complainant deposited at the counter the required documents i. e. copies of the said documents on 10th September, 1990 alongwith his letter dated 17.8.1990 which he must have submitted by way of abundant caution. We, therefore, find ourselves in agreement with the District Forum. There is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified as Rs.500/-. A copy of this order be communicated to both parties as well as District Forum-II.