The court upheld the liability of the petitioner to pay the loan amount to the society and applied the limitation period under Section 70(4) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 to dismiss the claim for refund of the entry fee.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 30.7.2014 passed by Delhi Cooperative Tribunal in Appeal No.36/2010/DCT and also the Award dated 9.1.2010 passed by the Arbitrator U/s. 71 of the Act;

(b) Directions may also be issued to the society to refund Rs.40,000/- as charged by way of Entry Fee with interest or the same may kindly adjusted against the future maintenance charges;

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Registrar to complete the recovery proceedings initiated under Section 59 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 within a stipulated period;

(d) Issue a writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case;

(e) Cost of the proceedings may also be awarded."

2. In substance, the challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (`DCT', in short) in Appeal No. 36/2010/DCT and also the award dated January 09, 2010 passed by the learned Arbitrator under Section 71 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003.

3. The grievance of the petitioner before the learned Arbitrator was two-fold. One with regard to the claim of Rs.40,000/- as a refund from the society, which was paid by the petitioner at the time of entry to take possession of the flat in question. The second grievance is with regard to a claim of Rs.61,257/- by the society pursuant to a loan of Rs.1.6 crores taken by the society from DCHFC, i.e. respondent No. 3 herein.

4. The brief facts are that one S. K. Arora was the member of the society being Pharmaceuticals Employees CGHS Ltd. He was allotted flat No. B-17/211. The petitioner purchased the said flat from S. K. Arora vide a GPA dated May 28, 1999. Thereafter, the society had demanded Rs.40,000/- as an entry fee from the petitioner.

5. The case of the petitioner was that, he has been forced to pay the amount on July 07, 1999. With regard to the loan amount, it was the case of the petitioner that, as the petitioner had paid the complete amount to S. K. Arora, he was not liable to pay any loan amount taken by the society.

6. Whereas, the case of the society was that, it had taken loan from DCHFC/respondent no. 3 and the refunds were utilized in construction of the flats and the members were asked to share the burden of the past liability equally to avoid further accumulation of interest. It was also the case of the Society that the membership of the flat was transferred in the name of the petitioner on April 08, 2007 after the petitioner gave an affidavit that, he would pay the amount, if any, against the original member as and when asked and certified by the society.

7. The learned Arbitrator held that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.61,257/- against the loan taken by the society from the respondent No. 3. In so far as the dispute with regard to the claim of the society to pay the refund of the entry fee of Rs.40,000/- is concerned, the learned Arbitrator took a view that the said claim is barred by time.

8. The DCT while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, in paragraphs 10, 11 & 12, has stated as under:

"10. The society is claiming that the entry fee was not paid by the appellant. The membership in his name had been transferred on 08/04/2007. Copy of the affidavit of the appellant dated 31/03/2007 shows that he had agreed to clear the liability, if any, against the original member, in respect of the dues towards the society.

11. The appellant is placing reliance on the receipt no.457 dated 07/07/1997. A perusal of the receipt reveals that the amount had been paid by Sh. Arora and not by the appellant. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that he had paid the amount of Rs.40,000/- through cheque on 07/07/1999 vide receipt no.457 is factually incorrect. Sh.Arora is not seeking