Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
RAJ SINGH – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
RSA No. 249 of 2015
Decided On : 19-04-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Prasoon Kumar Mishra.
For the Respondents: Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Mr. Mohit Khubchandani, Mr. Shashank Khurana and Mr. Dharmendra Sharma.
The main legal point established is that the mode of payment for allotment of flats under the Ambedkar Awas Yojna housing scheme is determined by a computerized lottery process, and registrants do not have the right to get a flat as per their choice of mode of payment.
Headnote:
Ambedkar Awas Yojna - Housing Scheme - CPC - 1908 - Section 100 - Mode of Payment - 40% allotments in MIG and 25% allotment in LIG will be made on Cash Down and remaining 60% in MIG and 75% in LIG would be on hire purchase basis only. Allotment would be on the terms and conditions contained in the Delhi Development Authority (Management, Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations 1968 by way of draw of lots. Successful applicants would be issued laminated identification cards which would bear photographs specimen signatures and identification mark of the allotee. No separate applications will be invited for allotment of flats. Registrants may indicate their choice in regard to the Mode of Payment in Application Form. However, that does not confer on the Registrants the right to get flat as per their choice of Mode of Payment exercised by them.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/plaintiff applied for a flat under the Ambedkar Awas Yojna housing scheme but was allotted the flat on cash-down basis instead of hire-purchase basis as applied. The appellant failed to make the payment despite extensions, and the allotment was cancelled by the respondent/defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was rightly treated as an allottee of the flat on cash down basis in terms of a valid computerized lottery process. The appellant's failure to pay the amount under cash down basis led to a valid cancellation of the allotment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be allowed to convert his category from cash-down basis to hire-purchase basis, which was denied based on the respondent's Resolution no. 145/1992.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was rightly treated as an allottee of the flat on cash down basis in accordance with the housing scheme's provisions. The computerized lottery process for allotment was found to be fair and without human choice or favor.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. By this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) the appellant/plaintiff impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 15.10.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 30.4.2015; whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction for directions to the respondent/defendant to allot the flat being No. 310, ground floor, Pocket-B, Phase-2, Sector-24, Dwarka, New Delhi has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/defendant Delhi Development Authority (DDA) announced an Ambedkar Awas Yojna, 1989 for housing of the weaker sections of the society. Under the scheme, the appellant/plaintiff claimed that he was eligible under the MIG category and hence he applied under the MIG category. The appellant/plaintiff applied for allotment on hire-purchase basis. The appellant/plaintiff, however, received an allotment letter on the basis of the draw dated 15.9.1998 whereby the appellant/plaintiff was allotted the flat on cash-down basis and was directed to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 7,85,595.36/- on or before 25.5.1999 i.e. the appellant/plaintiff was allotted the flat on cash-down basis and not on hire-purchase basis for which he had applied. Appellant/ plaintiff approached the respondent/defendant for conversion of the allotment from cash-down basis to hire-purchase basis but the respondent/defendant showed its inability to do the same in view of its Resolution No. 145/1992. The appellant/plaintiff did not have the funds to make the entire payment and he therefore requested for extension and which were granted to him, with the last extension being up to 25.8.1999. The appellant/plaintiff still failed to pay the amount and hence the respondent/defendant cancelled the allotment of the subject flat and it also refused to accept the request of the appellant/plaintiff for conversion of the appellant’s/plaintiff’s category from cash-down basis to hire-purchase basis as per its policy.
3. The suit was contested on behalf of the respondent/defendant by stating that the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to the flat only on cash-down basis as per the draw of lots held on 15.9.1998 and since appellant/plaintiff inspite of repeated notices failed to deposit the price even after granting extensions, and finally upto 24.11.1999, and hence a show cause notice was issued to the appellant/plaintiff on 30.5.2002 and thereafter the allotment was cancelled on 12.11.2002. Respondent/defendant also pleaded that as per its Resolution no. 145/1992 it was decided that there will be no entitlement to change the mode of payment and no entitlement will be there of a registrant/allottee to change the allotment from cash-down basis to hire-purchase basis.
4. The undisputed facts are that admittedly the appellant/plaintiff failed to deposit the amount due inspite of repeated extensions and hence the allotment was cancelled. This aspect has been dealt with by the trial court in Issue No. 3 in para 8 of its judgment and this para 8 of the judgment of the trial court reads as under:-
“8. I have heard both the parties and have perused the record carefully.
Issue No. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cancellation of letter dated 12.11.2002 against the suit property? OPP
The decision on this issue will have bearing on the remaining two issues and is, therefore, being decided first. The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that plaintiff had applied for allotment under the Ambedkar Avas Yojna and he was found entitled for the same. It is also not disputed that consequently flat no. 310, Pocket-8, Sector-14, Dwarka, Delhi was allotted to him in a draw held on 15.09.1998. The terms and conditions of the housing scheme is not in dispute as both the parties have relied on the same document as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.DW1/1. It is also not disputed that allotment letter in the block dated 20
