Tarlochan Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india 1950 - article 226--petitioner, a poor and illiterate--respondent allotted flat to petitioner--allottee committed breach of terms and conditions of the allotment-cum-demand letter--respondent cancelled the allotment which was allotted to petitioner on the ground that he failed to comply with the instructions--petition for quashment of order--held : in case an allottee fails to make the payment in terms of demand letter the respondent can take action and can cancel the allotment. - - that the petitioner is a poor person. the last date of the deposit of the said amount was june 15,1988. (3) the petitioner thereafter approached the respondent that the petitioner was a riot victim and a very poor person. as ill luck 'would have it the respondent instead of issuing a letter with regard to the possession over the flat, alluded to above, served him with the letter dated december 5,1988 ( vide annexure p-1) whereby the flat allotted in the name of the petitioner, referred to above, was cancelled on the ground that he failed to comply with the instructions contained in the letter dated march 6,1988. having seen no alternative the petitioner has approached this court. (5) the respondent through their counter affidavit have resisted the claim of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the impugned cancellation order dated december 5,1988 is fully justified as the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the prescribed time. however, he failed even to avail the said opportunity inasmuch as till to this date the petitioner has deposited only a sum of rs. (6) the only short point which arises for determination as is fully manifest from the facts canvassed above is as to whether the respondent was justified in passing the impugned order with regard to the cancellation of the flat allotted to the petitioner on december 5,1988 (vide annexure p-1) on his failure to deposit the required amount? 79,866.60 during the period march 13,1988 to may 16,1988. in case of his failure to do so he was required to deposit a sum of rs. 18267.94 in between the period may 17,1988 to may 31,1988. in case of his failure even then, he was required to pay rs. the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. no extension of time for payment as well as permission for change in mode of payment from full cash down to hire purchase will be allowed on any ground whatsoever. ' (11) it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is an illiterate poor person. delhi development authority & anr, 1995(1) ad del 725, if, however, the petitioners failed to make full payment in terms of the demand letters, on or before the said date, the dda will be at liberty in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment to take action.mohd. shamim, j.(1) the petitioner through the present writ petition has prayed for quashment of the order dated december 5,1988 whereby the respondent cancelled the allotment of flat no.50, pocket r, dilshad garden, delhi, which was allotted to him in dilshad garden residential scheme under lig category. (2) brief facts which led to the presentation of the present petition are as under: that the petitioner is a poor person. he is also physically handicapped. the petitioner applied to the respondent under the new pattern group housing scheme 1979 for allotment, of an lig flat. the petitioner de- posited a sum of rs. 1500.00 in connection therewith on september 4,1979 which was subsequently- to be adjusted towards the cost of the flat allotted to the petitioner ( vide annexure p-2). the application of the petitioner was registered at sr. no. 1127 ( vide annexure p- 3). the petitioner thereafter received allotment cum demand letter dated 16/17th march, 1988 ( annexure-1) whereby the petitioner was informed that he had been allotted a flat in pocket -r, flat no.50 on the second floor, dilshad garden, delhi. the respondent demanded a sum of rs. 82,300.00 minus the amount already deposited. the last date of the deposit of the said amount was june 15,1988. (3) the petitioner thereafter approached the respondent that the petitioner was a riot victim and a very poor person. besides that he was also suffering from physical disability. consequently he requested the respondent to change the mode of payment from cash down to hire purchase. he further requested the respondent that the second floor be changed to ground floor in the same colony ( vide annexure p-4). the petitioner moved the respondent over again through a letter dated june 10,1988 and requested the respondent to grant further time for making the payment of the amount mentioned in the allotment cum demand letter dated march 17,1988. subsequently the petitioner was informed vide letter dated june 17,1988 which was received by him on june 22,1988 that he was free to make payment of the 50% of the total consideration on cash down basis and the remaining amount he might clear in four equal monthly installments along with interest by june 15,1988 ( vide annexure p-6). (4) the petitioner thereafter came to know with regard to some letter purported to have been issued on august 25,1988 whereby the petitioner was required to deposit the amount by august 31,1988 through a dealing assistant of the dda on his visit on october 13,1988. the petitioner neither received the said letter nor a copy of the same was ever supplied to him. however, the petitioner suo motu deposited a sum of rs. 40,000.00 on october 14,1988 in the state bank of india, vikas sadan, ina, new delhi ( vide annexure p-8). the petitioner thereafter visited the office of the dda on different occasions in order to deposit the receipt and other documents, but the same were not accepted. however, on december 2,1988 the petitioner was successful in filing the said documents required for the purposes of possession over the aforementioned flat with the counter clerk. as ill luck 'would have it the respondent instead of issuing a letter with regard to the possession over the flat, alluded to above, served him with the letter dated december 5,1988 ( vide annexure p-1) whereby the flat allotted in the name of the petitioner, referred to above, was cancelled on the ground that he failed to comply with the instructions contained in the letter dated march 6,1988. having seen no alternative the petitioner has approached this court. (5) the respondent through their counter affidavit have resisted the claim of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the impugned cancellation order dated december 5,1988 is fully justified as the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the prescribed time. the petitioner was allowed even extension in time to make the deposit. however, he failed even to avail the said opportunity inasmuch as till to this date the petitioner has deposited only a sum of rs.40,000.00 only. the writ petition is false and frivolous and is thus liable to be dismissed. (6) the only short point which arises for determination as is fully manifest from the facts canvassed above is as to whether the respondent was justified in passing the impugned order with regard to the cancellation of the flat allotted to the petitioner on december 5,1988 (vide annexure p-1) on his failure to deposit the required amount? (7) i have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at sufficient length and have very carefully examined their rival contentions and have given my anxious thoughts thereto. (8) admittedly, this is riot the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made the payment of the entire consideration as per the stipulation of the demand cum allotment letter ( vide annexure -1). a close scrutiny of the same reveals that the petitioner was required to deposit the amount of rs.79,866.60 during the period march 13,1988 to may 16,1988. in case of his failure to do so he was required to deposit a sum of rs. 18267.94 in between the period may 17,1988 to may 31,1988. in case of his failure even then, he was required to pay rs. 80,667.28 within the period commencing from june 1,1988 to june 15,1988. it was made clear in the allotment letter itself in case the petitioner did not comply with the said terms and conditions in that eventuality it would lead to the automatic cancellation of the flat allotted to him. the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. (9) the petitioner thereafter saw the vice chairman, dda, as is manifest from the letter dated june 17,1988 addressed to the petitioner which is alleged to have been received by him on june 22,1988. the petitioner was permitted through the above said letter to pay 50% of the total consideration on cash down basis and the remaining amount in four equal monthly installments. admittedly, the said letter was received by the petitioner as is manifest from annexure p-7 i.e. the letter dated june 23,1988 addressed to the lt. governor, vice chairman and the deputy director, dda simultaneously. even then the petitioner did not care to avail the said opportunity and he disregarded with impunity all the instructions and flung to the winds all the concessions which were made available to him by the authorities. (10) the respondent in their counter affidavit have reproduced in para 14, clause 5, which is one of the terms and conditions of the allotment. the same can be referred to with profit and as such i am tempted to reproduce the same. it reads as under:- 'if the allottee does not make payment within 60 days as specified in clause (2) of the demand letter, the allotment shall stand cancelled automatically. however, if the payment is made after 60 days from the date of issue of the demand letter, he is liable to pay interest @ 12% for one additional month on net amount payable as specified in clause (2) of the demand letter. for the purpose of interest, a broken period up to 15 days is taken as a half month while that exceeding 15 days as full month. no extension of time for payment as well as permission for change in mode of payment from full cash down to hire purchase will be allowed on any ground whatsoever.'(11) it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is an illiterate poor person. he is a victim of riots. he is physically handicapped. he could not clear the requisite consideration, on account of straitened circumstances which he was passing through, within the stipulated period. he is thus thrall of circumstances. the learned counsel thus has tried to create an aura of victimisation around the petitioner through his arguments in order to gain sympathy for the petitioner from this court. however, while so doing he is oblivious of the fact that emotions and sentiments have little role to play in the realm of administration of justice. our laws are codified. they cannot be moulded to suit a particular situation according to the whim and fancy of a judge. a law is to be interpreted as it is and not as we wish it to be. when the intention of the legislature is clear and unequivocal, it has to be given effect to come what may. it is said justice is an inestimable treasure; but we must jealously guard it against the thief of mercy. (12) admittedly the petitioner committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the allotment cum demand letter, adverted to above. hence he has to drink as he has brewed. this court cannot now come to his rescue. (13) it is a settled principle of law that in case an allottee fails to make the payment' in tern's of the demand letter the respondent can take action and cancel the allotment. a matter very much akin to the matter in hand came up for hearing before a division bench of this court. while dealing with the default on the part of the allottee, it was observed in reeta mehta v. delhi development authority, (lpa no. 37/96 decided on march 7,1996), ...' the appellant did not make the full deposit within the period of 120 days which was the maximum period permitted under the allotment letter and thereafter in terms of the letter dated 27.3.1995 the allotment stood automatically cancelled. (14) in the writ petition there is not even a plea that the time is not. the essence of the contract ........ the period of 120 days was a term in terrorem and was not intended to be implemented.' (15) the above view was again reiterated by a full bench of this court as reported in sheelawati & anr. v. delhi development authority & anr, 1995(1) ad del 725, ' ....... if, however, the petitioners failed to make full payment in terms of the demand letters, on or before the said date, the dda will be at liberty in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment to take action......'. (16) in the above circumstnces, i do not see any force in the present petition. it is hereby dismissed.