PRAVEEN MEHTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS is an unfortunate case of act of misfeasance, oppressive and mala fide by the public officer, i. e. of the DDA that deprived the complainant the possession of a flat for inordinately long time for no fault of his.

(2.) THE complainant was allotted flat No. 194, 2nd Floor, Sector 23, Pocket-A, Rohini on cash down basis in the draw held on 7. 8. 1996 @ Rs. 5,89,268. 75. He paid to the OP Rs. 5,92,045. 94 by 18. 11. 96 and vide letter dated 18. 12. 96 received from the OP on 3. 2. 1997 submitted the necessary documents and prayed for delivery of possession. However, the possession letter was not issued despite personal visits by the complainant and the OP vide letter dated 4. 6. 1997, received by the complainant in September, 1997, asked the complainant to submit the same documents which the complainant had submitted earlier. Complainant met Mr. Juneja, Assistant Director, MIG (Housing) and all the documents were found in the DDA file. However, on the insistence of Mr. Juneja, the complainant submitted one more set of these documents. Vide letter dated 1. 10. 1997, the OP asked the complainant to complete the conveyance deed within 45 days before the possession of the flat could be given to him. According to the complainant, this is contrary to the enclosure sent with the allotment letter and also to the statement made in the conveyance deed "and physical possession handed over to him". Complainant received another letter dated 19. 1. 1998 from the OP stating that "the possession letter for the flat is not being issued because of the electricity having not been provided in the flat" and offered to give possession without electricity on request. In this letter, there was no mention of the conveyance deed for issuing the possession letter. Thus, according to the complainant, the OP has delayed the possession on one pretext or the other and the OP was not justified in holding a draw for the allotment of the flats and receiving payments from the allottees when the flats were not ready in all respects. Complainant has also objection against the change of his option for allotment on hire purchase basis to cash down basis without his consent and against demand of conveyance deed before delivery of possession. Complainant is seeking possession of the flat; interest @ 18% p. a. on his payment of Rs. 5,92,045. 45 from the date of deposit till the date of possession; and appropriate compensation for mental agony because the conduct of the OP has adversely affected the health of the complainant and her husband.

(3.) IN its defence, OP DDA has pleaded that possession letter could not be issued to the complainant because she failed to submit the original surrender slip, conveyance papers duly stamped and four copies of possession letter and also failed to pay the restoration charges of Rs. 2,500 for late submission of documents. As to the electricity connection, OP averred that this was to be provided by another agency and there were some obstacles in electrifying the area. Complainant was offered possession without electricity which she did not accept. OP has also raised the following preliminary objections: