2002 Supreme(Del) 1141
High Court Of Delhi
KAPIL RAINA - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Civil Writ 524 of 1998
Decided On : 08/09/2002
MADHURIMA TATIA, Mala Goel, V.Shankra
Unauthorized demands by housing societies and misinterpretation of relevant rules and directives.
Headnote:
Entry Fee - Housing Society Dispute - Rule 34-A of the relevant rules, Registrar's directive dated 14. 12. 1999, Rule 34-A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant turned owner of a flat, was harassed by the respondent society for payment of entry fee/power of attorney charges. The society also dithered in transferring membership rights to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the demand for entry fee/power of attorney charges was unauthorized and not supported by any law. The society's reliance on Rule 34-A was misdirected, and its actions were vacillating and contradictory.
Issues: The key issue was whether the demand for entry fee/power of attorney charges by the respondent society was legal and valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demand for entry fee/power of attorney charges was not authorized by any law, and the society's reliance on Rule 34-A was misplaced.
Final Decision: The court quashed the demand for entry fee/power of attorney charges and directed the society to consider the petitioner's case for transfer of membership rights within four months.
( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submitted that impugned demand raised against petitioner was without any authority of law and in contravention of registrar s directive dated 14. 12. 1999 restraining all housing societies from charging any "entry fee" from purchasers of flats from original members. He also pointed out that petitioner had acquired freehold rights meanwhile and yet the committee was dithering in transferring membership rights to him in terms of Rule 34-A of the relevant rules.
( 3 ) RESPONDENT society has filed its counter, firstly, raising some technical objections regardingnon-impleadment of vendor (original member) and questioning locus of petitioner, etc. On merits, it is denied that it had raised any demand of Rs. 1 lac from petitioner on account of entry fee/power of attorney charges . It, however, admits that it had raised a demand of Rs. 50,000/- from him as some transfer fee which it had also charged from other such purchasers of the flats. The society has also referred to its Managing Committee resolution dated 12. 3. 1996, resolving to raise refundable development and administrative charges for various categories of flats and non-refund of refundable security deposit made by the members along with it. It has claimed that petitioner had failed to pay the transfer fee and maintenance charges and has invoked Rule 34-A of the relevant rules to suggest that transfer of membership was subject to fulfilment of certain conditions which petitioner had failed to satisfy.
( 4 ) BY Court order dated 10. 2. 1998, R-4 was restrained from taking any coercive steps from dispossessing the petitioner. By subsequent order dated 29. 3. 2000 petitioner was required to pay due maintenance charges under Rules. The matter has remained pending ever since.
( 5 ) THE short question that falls for determination is whether the alleged demand of Rs. 1 lac raised by R-4 society against petitioner was legal and valid and whether it had any sanction of law behind it. There is no dispute that petitioner was a bona-fide purchaser and that no society dues were outstanding against the original member from whom he had purchased the flat. His liability being co-extensive with that of vendor, he was, liable to pay only those charges which were recoverable from the original member. He could be charged beyond that only under some authority of law. Needless to point out that neither any provision of relevant Act or Rules nor any other law for that matter provided for levy and charging of any entry fee/power of attorney charges by purchasers of the flats from original members. Therefore, it can t be said in the facts and circumstances of the case that action of R-4 in raising any such demand on account of ?ny "entry fee or "power of attorney charges was authorised by any law. This finds support from Registrar s directive dated 11. 12. 2000 also which prohibits a housing society from charging such