Santosh Kumari Chadha vs.railway Employees Chgs Ltd. & Anr - Court Judgment

$~13 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 7541/2013 Date of decision:

13. h September, 2018 SANTOSH KUMARI CHADHA ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Advocate. versus RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CHGS LTD. & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr. D.K. Rustagi, Advocate. Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.

(ORAL) CM No.25848/2017 Delay in filing of the rejoinder affidavit in R.P.No 293/2017 of 117 days is condoned. The application is disposed of. Review Petition No.293/2017 This is an application by Railway Employees Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited (Co-operative Society, for short) for review of the order and judgment dated 16th December, 2016, whereby specific directions were issued to the Registrar Co-operative WP(C) No.754/2013 Page 1 of 5 Society to ensure that the legal representatives of late Santosh Kumari Chadha is given possession of flat No.39.

2. Judgment dated 16th December, 2016, records the past history including the award dated 22nd May, 2001 holding that late Santosh Kumari Chadha was a member of the Co-operative Society. The award had rejected claim and contention of the Co-operative Society that late Santosh Kumari Chadha had resigned as wrong and incorrect.

3. The judgment also refers to subsequent orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No.5351/2010 as flat No.39 had been allotted to the daughter-in-law of the Secretary of the Co-operative Society, to deny and deprive late Santosh Kumari Chadha of her right and entitlement. Directions were issued that the keys of the flat No.39 should be deposited in the Court.

4. The judgment elucidates how and in what manner steps and attempts were made by the Co-operative Society to stall and prevent allotment of the flat to late Santosh Kumari Chadha for nearly twenty years. Till her death on 6th April, 2015, she did not get to live and reside in the flat.

5. The judgment dated 16th December, 2016, had primarily decided the question of interest payable in terms of award dated 22nd May, 2001 and challenge to the cost of flat as demanded by the Cooperative Society. For reasons set out in paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment dated 16th December, 2016, it was held that simple WP(C) No.754/2013 Page 2 of 5 interest @ 12% per annum would be payable on Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. the cost of the flat. Interest, it was held, would be payable with effect from 28th July, 1996. As late Santosh Kumari Chadha had sent a demand draft of Rs. 12,48,000/- to the Co-operative Society on 3rd September, 2013, it was directed that the interest would be paid to the Society only on the balance amount. We had also in our judgment noticed the harassment suffered and met out to late Santosh Kumari Chadha who, having expired on 6th April, 2015, during her life time could not get possession of the flat. We had expressed dissatisfaction in the manner in which the Co-operative Society had raised demand of Rs.43,13,340/- and hence termed their conducts as cussed and malevolent.

6. The Co-operative Society which had not entered appearance and defended their action and demand raised in spite of notices, has now filed the present review application stating that late Santosh Kumari Chadha was not entitled and could not have been enrolled as a member as she was owner of residential plot bearing No.J-42, W2- 52A Beri Walk Bagh, Hari Nagar, Delhi. On being asked, learned counsel for the Co-operative Society states that this fact was not known and has come to their knowledge after proceedings were initiated by Manish Jain, who claims to have acquired right in flat No.39 from the daughter-in-law of the then Secretary of the Society. Manish Jain, it appears is a subsequent purchaser.

7. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of late Santosh Kumari Chadha states that late Santosh Kumari Chadha’s ownership WP(C) No.754/2013 Page 3 of 5 was in the knowledge of the Co-operative Society for a long time. This application is nothing but another attempt to delay and compel the non-applicants to accept the dictate and power of the Co-operative Society. It is also stated that late Santosh Kumari Chadha was not disqualified, as area of the plot was less than 66 square meters. He submits that this belated challenge is mala fide. The Co-operative Society has been constantly raking up dead and stale issues and grounds to stall and obstruct grant of possession.

8. In view of the aforesaid position and our judgment dated 16th December, 2016, we are inclined to dispose of the present review application with the following directions:-

"(a) The Registrar, Co-operative Societies will consider the objection with regard to eligibility of late Santosh Kumari Chadha within a period of three weeks from the date copy of this order is received. In case, late Santosh Kumari Chadha, it is held was eligible, possession of Flat No.39 will be given to her legal representatives within two weeks thereafter. Compliance would be made, even if full formalities and permission have not been obtained. (b) While deciding the question of eligibility, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies would also examine whether the objection with regard to eligibility was raised earlier and has been rejected, in which event, the issue would not be re-considered. If the objection was not raised, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies would examine whether the factum of ownership was known and was in the knowledge of the Cooperative Society but they had not raised this objection earlier. If WP(C) No.754/2013 Page 4 of 5 this is true and correct, the sad facet and factum will be given due weightage. (c) The Cooperative Society would furnish necessary documents and papers to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies within a period of 15 days from today and in case of a favourable decision, they would cooperate and not obstruct and prevent the legal representatives of late Santosh Kumari Chadha from taking possession. (d) In case there is delay by the Cooperative Society in furnishing papers and documents or they prevent the legal representatives of late Santosh Kumari Chadha from taking possession, the said non- applicants would be entitled to initiate contempt proceedings and in addition claim damages from the Cooperative Society in accordance with law. (e) In case the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is not in a position to decide the issue with the aforesaid period, they would file an application before this Court seeking extension of time. On an application being filed, the Court would examine, consider and may even pass an interim order directing handing over of possession of the flat pending decision of the said issue.

9. Recording the above, the review application is disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J.

SEPTEMBER13 2018/MR CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

WP(C) No.754/2013 Page 5 of 5