( 1 ) PETITIONER a private limited company challenges demand raised by DDA vide letter dated 30. 9. 1998. By and under said letter, interest in the sum of rs. 23,25,495/- has been demanded. Said sum has been arrived at levying interest @ 18% p. a. on premium of rs. 54,40,922/- for the period 1. 8. 1994 to 12. 12. 1996.

( 2 ) CASE of the petitioner is that one Shri Tilak raj was the member of the Surgical Co-op. Society ltd. . As member of the society, he was entitled to an industrial plot in his name. He died on 23. 11. 1982 and his nominee Smt. Karman Wali (his wife) was substituted as a member in his place by the society. Possession of the plots could not be given to the members of The surgical Co-op Society Ltd. as there was dispute pertaining to the cost. Matter attained finality on 16. 8. 1993 when Supreme Court passed an order in ca. No. 668/88 settling the issue of price. Post settlement of the issue of cost, on 1. 7. 1994, DDA issued a demand in the sum of Rs. 54,40,922. 60 for the plot in question i. e. plot No. B-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- i, New Delhi. Demand was raised on :

( 3 ) IT is stated by the petitioner that M/s Om engineering Works was not the allottee and as a result of demand being issued in the name of said firm, brothers of late Sh. Tilak Raj claimed that plot be allotted jointly in the name of partners of the firm. They claimed to be partners of the firm when application was filed. They filed a civil suit against Smt. Karmanwali being suit No. 226/95. Suit was settled.

( 4 ) PETITIONER states that Smt. Karmanwali had sought mutation in the record of DDA on 14. 1. 1989. On 26. 8. 1996, DDA effected mutation. She requested DDA to mutate plot in the name of the petitioner. On 11. 9. 1996, DDA mutated plot in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, DDA raised a demand in the sum of Rs. 54,40,922. 60 on the petitioner vide letter dated 14. 11. 1996. Petitioner paid on 3. 12. 1996. After depositing the amount, petitioner demanded possession. DDA raised demand towards interest and made payment a condition precedent for handing over possession.

( 5 ) IT is urged that by raising a demand on M/s om Engineering Works, DDA tempted its erstwhile partners to lay a claim to the plot. Matter got delayed and, therefore, DDA cannot levy interest for late payment.

( 6 ) DURING pendency of the writ petition, petitioner had approached the Permanent Lok Adalat of dda. On 10. 7. 2003, the Presiding Officer of the Lok adalat recommended that DDA should not charge interest. Reason for said recommendation was that dda could not have issued a demand letter on M/s Om engineering Works and by issuing the demand on said firm, dda was responsible for its erstwhile partners to lay a claim to the plot. Till date of dispute being resolved, DDA was opined as not being entitled to interest.

( 7 ) PETITIONER filed CM. No. 4494/03 praying that in view of the recommendation of the Lok Adalat, DDA be directed to hand over possession without receiving any interest.

( 8 ) THERE was a dispute as to who controls the petitioner company. Ms. Pinki Anand, Advocate as also mr. Manoj Singh, Advocate claimed right to represent the company. Each acted under a Vakalatnama issued to them by different persons claiming to be a Director of the petitioner. Both were heard.

( 9 ) DDA was directed to produce the record. None was produced when arguments were heard. Thereafter, on 29. 11. 2004, DDA filed CM. No. 13792/04 and sought leave of the Court to submit the record. With consent of both counsel for the petitioner, record was taken for being considered.

( 10 ) QUESTION arises, whether DDA is at fault in addressing the demand letter to M/s Om Engineering Works? if yes, whether Smt. Karmawali was justified in not making payment. It may be noted that request of smt. Karmawali to transfer the allotment in favour of petitioner was much after July,1994 when demand was raised.

( 11 ) RECORD of DDA shows that as of March,1968, it had a