Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President— Briefly the facts are that the complainant is a retired public servant. He got himself registered for a MIG flat in ‘Special Housing Registration Scheme of 1982 for Retired/Retiring Public Servants’ on depositing the registration amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 7.2.83. It is alleged that according to the scheme the DDA had to construct the house and announce from time to time specific area of houses and to ask the registrants to exercise their options for the areas. Later it was decided by the DDA in January, 85 to allot to the registrants the houses out of the 5000 houses, which were already under construction in different areas of Delhi. In March, 86 a draw was held by the DDA to allocate house to the registrants and result of the draw was published in the Indian Express of 18th April, 86.

2. In the draw the complainant was allocated a flat in Rohini Complex. He informed the DDA that the flat was not acceptable to him as he had given his choice for a flat in South Delhi. It is alleged that without careing for his wish he was allotted the said flat on 29th August, 86. He protested against the allotment of the flat and requested the DDA to refund the registration fee in case it was not possible to allot a flat to him in South Delhi. The DDA turned down his request on the ground that it was against their policy vide their letter dated 8.5.87. He again made representations against the allotment of the flat in Rohini Complex to DDA. Ultimately the DDA cancelled the allotment and demanded a sum of Rs. 9.779.45 P. from him as cancellation charge vide letter dated 1.8.88. It is alleged that the claimant was entitled to a flat in South Delhi.

3. Consequently it has been prayed by the complainant that the DDA be directed to allot to him a MIG flat on the ground floor in South Delhi on hire purchase basis at a price, which was charged from others in 1986-87. In case a MIG flat was not available in Self Financing Scheme (Category-II) the flat be converted into MIG, and that be allotted to him. It is further prayed that the DDA be directed to pay rupees two lacs as compensation each to him and his wife for undue suffering, Rs. 50,000/- to him on account of loss incurred by him in keeping the estimated amount of money payable on the allotment of the flat floating, from mid 1986 onwards and Rs. 50,000/- which shall have to be spent due to escallation of cost of material and labour over and above the expenditure which would have been incurred in 1986-87on the works left out by DDA and considered essential to make the flat liveable.

4. The complaint has been contested by the DDA. It has inter-alia been pleaded by it that the complaint is barred by limitation. On merits it is stated that the flats were likely to be constructed in West Delhi, North Delhi and trans-Yamuna area under the scheme. The progress of the construction of flats was slow and the registrants of the scheme were pressing hard for the early allotment of the flats readily available in Rohini and Trans-’ yamuna area. Such flats were allotted to the registrants through draw of lots held on 29th March, 86. The complainant was informed vide letter dated 6.1.87, 8.5.87, 3.11.87 and 23.4.88 that the change of locality from Rohini to South Delhi was not possible as per policy. The representation of the complainant dated 4.9.86 was received in the office and he was informed vide letter dated 6.1.87 that the change of locality from Rohini to South Delhi could not be acceded to. He was also advised that if the flat was not acceptable to him he should apply for cancellation of the same. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent that the complaint is not within limitation.

5. We have heard the parties at a considerable length on the question of limitation. The complainant has argued that the onus to prove that the complaint is barred by limitation should be on the respondent. We do not agree with his contention. Section 3 of the Limitation Ac