Back
High Court Of Delhi
R.K.ANEJA - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Decided On : 02/09/1996
AUCTION - TERMS AND CONDITIONS - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS - DELHI DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1957 - SECTION 53B - NOTICE - MANDATORY REQUIREMENT - SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE - CAUSE OF ACTION - RELIEF CLAIMED - NOTICE EX. P. 6 - NON-COMPLIANCE - SUIT NOT MAINTAINABLE - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - DISCRETIONARY RELIEF - SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE - READY AND WILLING TO PERFORM - ONUS OF PROOF - CONTINUOUS READINESS AND WILLINGNESS - SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE - TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AUCTION - BALANCE PAYMENT - DEMAND - FORFEITURE OF EARNEST MONEY - JUSTIFIED - SUIT DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff participated in an auction conducted by the defendant, Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and was declared the highest bidder for a plot. He deposited 25% of the bid amount as earnest money and signed the printed terms and conditions of the auction. The plaintiff received a letter from the DDA informing him that his bid had been confirmed and he was required to deposit the balance amount within two months. The plaintiff sought an extension of time, which was granted by the DDA. However, the plaintiff failed to make the payment within the extended time and the DDA sent him several reminders. The plaintiff responded by stating that he was not liable to pay the balance amount since the plot had not been fully developed. The DDA cancelled the allotment of the plot and forfeited the earnest money. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the earnest money were illegal and void, and for a decree of specific performance directing the DDA to execute a lease deed in his favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable as he had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, which requires a notice to be served on the DDA before instituting a suit against it. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of specific performance as he had failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at all relevant times. The court noted that the plaintiff had not made the balance payment within the stipulated period and had not responded to the DDA's demand notices. The court also found that the plaintiff had not been misled by the DDA into believing that the balance payment would not be demanded until the plot was fully developed.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 53-B of the Delhi Development Act, 1957? 2. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? 3. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction? 4. Whether the suit is within limitation? 5. To what relief plaintiff is entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 is a mandatory provision that requires a notice to be served on the DDA before instituting a suit against it. The notice must state explicitly the cause of action, the nature of relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed, and the name and place of residence of the intending plaintiff. The notice Ex. P. 6 served by the plaintiff did not comply with these requirements and therefore the suit was not maintainable. 2. The plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of specific performance as he had failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at all relevant times. The onus of proof of being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at all relevant period, namely, from the date of the contract to the date of the filing of the suit is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not made the balance payment within the stipulated period and had not responded to the DDA's demand notices. The plaintiff had also not been misled by the DDA into believing that the balance payment would not be demanded until the plot was fully developed.
Final Decision: The plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) IN the suit instituted on 5th March, 1979, the plaintiff prayed for grant of a decree for declaration that the orders of defendant in making a demand of Rs. 47,111. 00 with interest in respect of plot No. 112, Block No. A/m, (Dakshani) Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme, New Delhi (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the plot") and subsequently its cancellation and forfeiture of the amount and reauctioning the same is illegal, without jurisdiction and wrongful. As a consequential relief the plaintiff prayed for the restoration of the allotment of the plot in question.
( 2 ) THERE was an office objection as regards Court fee payable on the plaint. Plaintiff sought amendment by moving I. A. 785/79, which was allowed ex parte on 12th March, 1979, since defendant had not yet been summoned. In the amended plaint dated 8th March, 1979 the following prayer was made :-
"a declaratory decree be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant that the re-auction of the plot No. 112, Block No. A/m, Residential Scheme, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, is illegal, without jurisdiction, void and wrongful, and the plaintiff is the owner/allottee of the same. "
( 3 ) SUMMONS were directed to be issued to the defendant of this suit. After the defendant had been served and written statement was filed, I. A. 2198/80 was moved seeking further amendment to the plaint. By this application, plaintiff wanted to convert the suit to a suit for specific performance of the contract. This application was allowed on 1st October, 1980. The plaintiff was permitted to carry out amendment. In the amended plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs:-
" (A) That a declaratory decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant that the act of the defendant in cancelling of the plot auctioned in favour of the plaintiff and of forfeiting the earnest money/part payment of the plaintiff is illegal, and in-operative and that the plaintiff continues to be the valid auction purchaser of the plot in suit; (b) That a declaratory decree be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant that the re-auction of plot No. 112, block No. A/ M, Residential Scheme, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, is illegal, without jurisdiction, void and wrongful; (c) That a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell effected by the aution of the plot in suit be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing that the defendant to execute the lease deed/ sale deed/another documents in favour of the plaintiff, after receiving the balance amount of the consideration from the plaintiff, so as to fully transfer the plot in suit to the plaintiff and also to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff; (d) That a perpetual injunction may be granted against the defendant restraining it from re-auctioning it and from transferring/delivering possession of the plot and also to execute lease deed/sale deed or other document in favour of any other person in any manner whatsoever;"
( 4 ) IT is this amended plaint on the basis of which rights of the parties are to be decided.
( 5 ) THE plaintiff has averred that public notice was issued for auction of certain residential plots in Shalimar Bagh. On coming to know of the advertisement, the plaintiff made enquiries about the terms and conditions. He was supplied with a copy of the printed form of terms and conditions. The plaintiff inspected the site. Development work was yet at an initial stage. One of the conditions, which the plaintiff read was that the highest bidder will be required to deposit 25% of the bid amount as an earnest money at the fall of hammer. The auction was held on 10th August, 1976 in which the plaintiff participated and was declared to be the highest bidder for the plot in question having made a bid of Rs. 62,800. 00. As per the terms of the auction, the plaintiff deposited 25% of the bid amount. On payment of the amount, the plaintiff was
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
