LAWS(NCD)-2021-9-37

PARUL SHALI Vs. GREATER NOIDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On September 20, 2021
Parul Shali Appellant
V/S
GREATER NOIDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case as made out by the complainant in the complaint are that Opposite Party had floated a scheme known as BHS Built-up Housing Scheme No.12 which had opened on 15.01.2010 and was to close on 15.02.2010. The draw of lots was to be conducted in May 2010. The complainant applied for registration of residential flat on 15.02.2010 and deposited a sum of Rs.3,10,000/-. She was declared a successful candidate in the draw of lots in May 2010 and was allotted a flat in Omicron-1A. Vide letter of allotment-cum-allocation, she was allotted Flat No.101, Ground Floor in Block no.14, Omicron-1A under IT Code No.GH-03 bearing serial no. 29824, Scheme Code BHS-12 on 16.08.2010. As per the clause M of the brochure accompanying this letter, the possession was to be handed over within a period of two years i.e. by 16.08.2012. The complainant had also deposited balance registration money / allotment money of Rs.8,50,100/- and till 30.09.2010, the complainant had paid total amount of Rs.47,64,852/-towards cost of flat. She had received a letter dated 01.06.2016 from the opposite party stating such deposit as "?Residential Payment Intimation (Financial). It is submitted that till the filing of the present complaint, the opposite party had failed to offer possession of the flat to her and it is submitted that opposite party is guilty for deficiency in service.

(2.) Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party had filed its written statement wherein they had admitted the factum that complainant had been allotted the subject flat vide allotment letter. It is submitted that complainant was called to take the possession in 2016 but the complainant did not respond to that letter and that complaint is mischievous and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, she stated that she had never received letter containing offer of possession as alleged by the opposite party in the year 2016 or at any other date.