Judgment:
ORDER
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
C.W. 869/2002 :
1. The petitioner registered himself with the respondent for allotment of MIG flat under the NPRS, 1979 scheme. The petitioner was allotted a flat at Rohini in pursuance to the allotment letter dated 23.4.1990 on a hire purchase basis. The petitioner deposited the initial amount as also the documents required for taking over the possession and the possession letter was issued to the petitioner on 8th March, 1991. The petitioner, however, did not take possession and addressed a letter dated 18.12.1991 after a period of 19 months stating that he had gone to the flat in question and found certain defects which are as under:
'1. Wash Basin, Sink in kitchen and both to be provided -- Fixing of windows glass panes--and its fittings--handles--stoppers -- is to be provided--glass strips fixed in the floor of the lobby/kitchen-bed/ terrace need to be rectified as it can damage the feet-Door fittings are rusted and are not in proper orders -- WC systems is not in order.
2. There is total dampness in all the walls of WC and bath -- the terrace over head water tanks are provided of the level lower than out let RWP.
3. Plaster of kitchen slate is not provided--Hingis of the kitchen door not screwed fully -- No grinding and polishing of all levels RWP to be provided -- Level of terrace defective.
4. Water pipes fitted in kitchen--Bath--WC and pipes leading to over head water head tanks not painted.'
2. Thereafter there was silence on the part of the petitioner for a period of about two and a half years when the petitioner visited the site office of the respondent on 2.5.1994 and was informed that the possession letter had been sent back. A letter in these terms was addressed to the petitioner on 23.9.1994.
Since the petitioner had not taken possession the petitioner was asked to pay watch and ward charges for the period from 1990 to 1995 of Rs. 18,800/- which the petitioner paid.
3. There was again silence on the part of the petitioner for a period of almost six years when the petitioner addressed the letter dated 31.12.2001. The petitioner in this letter made a reference to certain defects in the flat. The petitioner was also called to appear before the concerned officer of the respondent in pursuance to the letter 14.1.2002 and thereafter filed the writ petition on 4.2.2002 against the respondent for quashing their action in not giving possession of the flat as also interest @ 18% per annum on the money deposited by the petitioner.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that the petitioner has failed to take over the possession of the flat which had to be taken within 90 day of the issuance of the letter. It is also stated that the defects stated in the letter were of minor character and were immediately rectified. It is stated that since the allotment was on hire purchase basis the petitioner was required to pay Installments from time to time commencing from 10.6.1990, but the Installments have not been paid by the petitioner.
5. The original records have also been produced before the Court and two documents have been pointed out which are communications addressed by the petitioner to the respondent on 28.9.1995 and 22.11.1995. The only grievance made in the letters is that the possession has not been handed over to the petitioner when the petitioner went to site and that earlier possession could not be taken over due to the difficulty of the petitioner. The issue of any defect in the flat has not been raised at all. The factum of the letters has not been disclosed in the writ petition.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. It is apparent that the petitioner was required to pay the amount of Installments in terms of the allotment letter since the allotment was on hire purchase basis. The only defense to this raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner did not take the possession of the flat the petitioner was not liable to pay the Installments. Refusal to take over possession is stated to be on account of defects. A reference to letter dated 8.12.1991 would show the nature of defects claimed by the petitioner were minor, which in any case are stated to have been rectified at that stage. These defects cannot be of such nature where the petitioner could not have taken possession of the flat.
7. The petitioner in fact slept over the matter for almost three years and thereafter approached the respondent and even paid the watch and ward charges. The occasion to pay the watch and ward charges would not have arisen if the fault was of the respondent. Not only this the petitioner even addressed two communications referred above dated 28.9.1995 and 22.11.1995 in respect of possession and never raised the issue of defects in the flat. In fact the petitioner has stated that he could not take possession of the flat being out of Delhi. Thereafter there has been silence for more than six years on the part of the petitioner during which period of time no communication was addressed by the petitioner. The petitioner has further failed to disclose the fact of two letters which in my considered view, the petitioner was duty bound to have filed along with the writ petition.
8. I am thus of the considered view that the facts of the case show that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding taking over possession of the flat in question and failed to make payments of the Installments due. In fact almost the complete period of payment of Installments of 10 years have elapsed since the petitioner was required to take possession. The petitioner kept silent over a long period of time and the petition thus suffers from culpable delay and laches. The conduct of the petitioner shows that there have been long gaps of almost three years at the first instance and more than six years at the second instance and the petitioner has failed to take possession of the flat. Lastly the petitioner has failed to disclose two relevant letters and thus the petition suffers from concealment of material facts.
9. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
CM. No. 1422/2002 :
Dismissed.