Failure to adhere to mandatory payment schedules in housing scheme allotments, particularly involving a delay of over three years, constitutes a valid ground for automatic cancellation under contractual terms, and courts cannot compel authorities to provide alternate allotments at superseded historical rates.

1. Present petition preferred on behalf of DDA (Opposite Party in the original complaint) assails Order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.470 of 2015, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of the complainant Bhanwar Singh Rajwat (Respondent herein) was allowed. Petitioner and respondent are hereinafter referred to as Complainant and Opposite Party as appearing in the complaint, for the sake of convenience.

2. Facts fall within a narrow encompass. Complainant Bhanwar Singh Rajwat registered for allotment of MIG flat under Ambedkar Awas Yojna vide application dated 29.12.1989, reflecting his residential address as Quarter No.104, Sidhoran Kalan, Delhi. Complainant was declared successful for allotment of MIG flat under afore-said scheme on hire purchase basis and demand letter No.9560 dated 26.12.2001 to 31.12.2001 was forwarded by DDA/OP. However, the said demand letter was received back as undelivered.

Complainant thereafter approached office of DDA/Opposite Party on 28.02.2002 and received the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter. Further, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by him on 04.03.2002.

3. In terms of the allotment letter, the last date to deposit the initial demanded amount was 31.03.2002 but the said payment was not deposited by the complainant.

In terms of the demand letter dated 26.12.2001-31.12.2001, in case the allottee failed to deposit the amount of Rs.5,26,460/- by 31.03.2002, the cancellation was automatic. Also, the cost of the flat was reflected as Rs.8,88,400/-. The complainant thereafter requested for extending the date for further payments and for waiving the interest on account of confirmation deposits as well as monthly deposits vide letter dated 11.03.2002 but the same was categorically declined by OP vide letter dated 09.04.2002 with a request to follow the terms and conditions of demand-cum-allotment letter dated 31.12.2001 or to apply for refund of registration.

4. DDA/OP further issued a show-cause notice dated 20.01.2004 to the complainant in view of breach of terms and conditions of allotment and cautioned that in case the reply is not furnished within 15 days, the allotment shall stand cancelled. However, in response to show-cause notice, complainant instead of complying with the terms and conditions of deposit, sought the extension of date for further payment and requested for informing the due amount towards pending monthly instalments along with amount to be paid on cash-down basis vide letter dated 29.01.2004. In furtherance to the same, a communication was further forwarded by OP/DDA vide letter dated 17.02.2004 asking to deposit the amount within seven days of receipt of the letter, failing which the allotment could be cancelled. Complainant, however, kept on dilly-dallying and forwarded letter dated 23.02.2004 which was responded by DDA vide letter dated 17.05.2004. Only thereafter, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,96,881/- vide challan dated 24.06.2004 which did not cover the up-to-date payments including the payment of Rs.5,26,440/- which he was required to initially deposit. Vide letter dated 29.07.2004, complainant was again requested by OP/DDA to deposit the amount of Rs.5,26,460/-, failing which cancellation would be effective from 30 days of the issue of the letter. The said demand was again disputed by the complainant vide letter dated 13.08.2004. Further, DDA again informed the default in payment of Rs.5,26,460/- by the complaint vide letter dated 04.09.2004.

5. A tripartite agreement dated 21.05.2005 was thereafter executed at request of complaina