- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the legality of the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2006 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (for short "the Commission"). By the aforesaid judgment and order the learned Commission made certain observations and recorded findings against the appellant herein, which are under challenge in this appeal. The Commission recorded a finding that the action of the appellant in increasing the cost which forced the respondent from making further payments resulting in the cancellation referred to by the appellant was unfair trade practice and the appellant had no right to forfeit the earnest money. Consequently a direction was issued that the appellant should return the earnest money with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of withholding the earnest money till the date of repayment in respect of the main flat as well as the parking space in respect of the letters dated 26th/27th May, 1999.
(3.)We may briefly state the facts leading to the aforesaid direction of the Commission. The respondent herein booked a flat along with parking space in the appellant's DLF Regency Park, Gurgaon by entering into an Apartment Buyer's Agrement on 17th June, 1993. The sale price fixed by both the parties was at Rs. 16,37,448/- payable in 42 installments spread over a period of ten years commencing from 9th March, ending on 9th March, 2003. The respondent, herein admittedly paid all the installment due upto September 1998 which came to a sum of Rs. 9,94,836/-. But thereafter he did not make any payment of installment and therefor was considered to be a defaulter by the appellant. In the meantime by letter dated 19th February, 1998 the appellant demanded an additional amount of Rs. 4,21,474.06 from respondent on account of cost of escalation, increase in area, external electrification, fire fighting system and stand by generators. The said amount was to be paid in four equal bi-monthly installment of Rs. 1,05,368.52/- commencing from 15th Mare, 1998. The respondent did not honour the said demand. Consequently, the appellant cancelled the allotment of the flat vide its letter 26th May, 1999 and forfeited the earnest money and returned the balance amount due.