Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member

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 Rajawat (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 Rajawat 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 complainant for purpose of financing the amount through PNB Housing Finance and in aforesaid context, DDA/OP vide letter dated 15.04.2005 conveyed payment of amount of Rs.9,47,925/- to Bank Manager, PNB Housing Finance before 30.04.2005. An amount of Rs.5,25,000/- was thereupon deposited by complainant vide challan dated 19.05.2005. Complainant was thereafter again requested vide letter dated 12.08.2005 to deposit the monthly instalments due whereupon an amount of Rs.1,56,147/- was deposited towards 23 instalments from July, 2004 to May, 2006.

6. In the aforesaid background, the case of the complainant was put up before the competent authority to regularize the delay of 1158 days towards payment of initial cost but the same was not acceded to by the competent authority and the allotment of the flat was cancelled. A cancellation letter dated 29.11.2006 was further forwarded to the complainant with a request to apply for refund of deposited amount as under:-

                          "DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MIG (H), 2ND FLOOR, D-BLOCK, VIKAS SADAN, INA, NEW DELHI.

                          No.M312(3049)2004/DW/AAY/2307 Dated 29/11/06 To, Sh. Bhanwar Singh Rajawat R/o A-5B/96A, Janakpuri Near C-2 Bus Stop, New Delhi-58.

                          Sub: Cancellation of registration no.4725-AAY-89/allotment of flat no.114, GRD, sector-13, Pkt-B, Dwarka.

                          Please refer to this office demand-cum-allotment letter dated 26.12.2001-31.12.2001 on the subject mentioned above. In this connection I am directed to inform that above mentioned registration/allotment of flat has been cancelled by the competent authority, as you have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the said demand-cum-allotment letter. You are therefore, requested to apply for refund of registration money along with following documents:-

                          1. Original demand letter dt. 26.12.2001-31.1202001

                          2. 4th copy of challan of amount deposited by you.

                          3. Residential proof i.e. photocopy of election card/I card etc.

                          4. Bank account number with full detail of bank.

                          5. Three specimen signature and one photo duly attested.

                          6. 4th copy of all bank challans.

                          Asstt. Director MIG(H), DDA"

                          Also, a representation dated 13.12.2006 submitted by the complainant was declined by DDA vide letter dated 14.02.2007 as under:-

                          "DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MIG (H), 2ND FLOOR, D-BLOCK, VIKAS SADAN, INA, NEW DELHI.

                          No.M312(3049)2004/DW/AAY/189 Dt. 14/2/07 To Sh. Bhanwar Singh Rajawat R/o A-5B/96A, Janakpuri Near C-2 Bus Stop, New Delhi-58.

                          Sub: Cancellation of registration No.4725-AAy-89/allotment of flat no.114, GRD, Sector-13, pkt-B, Dwarka.

                          Please refer to your letter dated 13.12.2006 on the subject mentioned above, In this connection, it is submitted that your case has been examined by the competent authority but it is regretted to inform you that the same can't be acceded to. You are therefore, requested to apply for refund of registration money alongwith following documents:--

                          1. Original demand letter dt. 26.12.2001-31.1202001

                          2. 4th copy of challan of amount deposited by you.

                          3. Residential proof i.e. photocopy of election card/I card etc.

                          4. Bank account number with full detail of bank.

                          5. Three specimen signature and one photo duly attested.

                          6. 4th copy of all bank challans.

                          Asstt. Director MIG(H), DDA"

7. Aggrieved against cancellation of flat, complaint was preferred by the complainant before the learned District Forum which was dismissed, holding that the complainant was not entitled to allotment of flat as there was a lapse on his part to adhere to the terms and conditions of demand-cum-allotment letter.

8. Complainant challenged the dismissal of complaint by the learned District Forum by preferring FA No.470 of 2015, which stands allowed by the learned State Commission vide impugned Order. OP has been thereby directed to allot to complainant an MIG flat in Dwarka out of the flats offered in Scheme of 2021, at the rates prevailing at the time of allotment in 2001.

9. OP/DDA assails Order passed by the learned State Commission in FA No.470 of 2015 inter alia on the ground that directions for allotment at rates of 2001 are erroneous since complainant was not eligible for allotment under the 2021 Scheme floated by DDA. It is also pointed out that only the eligible persons at the relevant time could have opted for the 2021 Scheme and there had been a drastic increase in the cost of the flats in the year 2021. Learned counsel emphasizes that the complainant failed to pay the amount within stipulated period and was deposited only after delay of 1158 days. He further contends that the terms of payment of instalments are mandatory and in the event of default in making the payment, DDA is fully justified in cancelling the allotment. The complaint is stated to have been rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum. Reliance is further placed upon Asha N. Madnani v. DDA, 1997 I AD (DELHI) 385 and Bhupinder Kumar v. DDA, 71 (1998) DLT 461.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant vehemently supports the Order passed by the learned State Commission. He submits that had the complainant received the initial demand letter dated 26.12.2001, the amount would have been deposited by 31.03.2002. The period for deposit of the amount is stated to have been curtailed by two months as the complainant had subsequently personally collected the copy of the letter from DDA on 28.02.2002. He further submits that in terms of hire-purchase scheme the allottees were required to pay 40% of the amount in respect of the MIG flats which comes to Rs.3,55,360/- of the total consideration amount of Rs.8,88,400/-. As such the balance amount demanded by DDA comes to Rs.5,26,460.95 (60% of the consideration of the flat). He further points out that amount of Rs.1,56,147/- was deposited by the complainant on 06.05.2006 and Rs.3,78,230 also stood deposited towards EMIs. He submits that since the afore-said amount of Rs.1,56,147/- and Rs.3,78,230 was not taken into consideration the amount due was shown as Rs.9,47,925/- by the OP while sending communication dated 15.04.2005 to PNB. He submits that if the afore-said payment had been acknowledged the balance due was only Rs.3,72,314/-. An amount of Rs.9,23,000/- is stated to have been deposited by the complainant towards the consideration of the flat and further demand of Rs.9,47,000/- demanded by the OP is stated to be misconceived. The delay in depositing the scheduled payments is stated to have been condoned by DDA in view of execution of Tripartite Agreement entered between the complainant, PNB Housing Finance and OP in April, 2005. Learned counsel urges that prior defaults could not have been revived by the OP for the purpose of cancelling the flat. The allotment of the flat in question by the OP in favour of another person is stated to be inequitable.

11. We have given considered thought to the contentions raised and perused the record carefully.

                          In order to ascertain the date of payments made by the complainant towards the consideration of flat, an affidavit was directed to be filed by a competent officer of the OP. Pursuant to the directions of this Commission, an affidavit dated 13.01.2026 has been filed before this Commission on 19.01.2026 on behalf of the OP. The averments made in para 3 to 12 of the affidavit may be reproduced for reference:-

                          "3. That the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter issued in favour of the Respondent clearly stipulated the schedule, mode, and quantum of payments required to be made by the Respondent towards confirmation amount, cost, and monthly instalments. The said Demand-Cum-Allotment Letter also specified that timely payment of the said amounts was a mandatory condition for continuation of allotment and enjoyment of the allotment benefits.

                          4. That the Respondent has continuously failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the DAL and has never paid agreed amount on time and even paid the initial amount after a delay of 1158 days.

                          5. That the Respondent failed to make initial payment of Rs. 5,26,460/- for which the stipulated deadline was 31.03.2002. The Respondent was given several reminders dated 20.01.2004, 17.02.2004, 29.07.2004 and 12.08.2005.

                          6. That the Respondent defaulted subsequently and partially cleared his dues and the delay was examined and not condoned by the competent authority. The allotment was cancelled as per the contractual clause of automatic cancellation. The reference is made to clause 11(iii) wherein it is stated that "In case of allotment on Cash Down Basis, allottees are required to pay the total cost of the flat (including the amount paid as registration Deposit) within 2 months from the date of issue of allotment cum demand letter in the event of default the allotment is liable to be cancelled."

                          7. That upon the respondent's failure to adhere to the payment schedule, the allotment stood cancelled ipso facto by operation of Clause 11(iii). The subsequent communication issued by the DDA merely conveyed an already concluded contractual consequence and did not constitute a fresh or discretionary decision.

                          8. That despite clear stipulations under Demand-Cum-Allotment Letter, the Respondent failed to strictly adhere to the prescribed payment schedule. The payments actually made by the Respondent, as per the records available with the Petitioner Authority, are tabulated hereinbelow for the ready reference of this Hon'ble Court:

                          Challan S.No Amount Date Remarks No. Confirmation 1 29032 20,000 04.03.2002 Amount Monthly 2 41267 1,96,881 28.06.2004 Installments 3 2697 5,25,000 28.05.2005 Cost 4 2663 1,000 03.06.2005 Cost Monthly 5 2664 1,56,147 20.05.2006 Installments

9. That a bare perusal of the above table, when read in conjunction with Demand-Cum-Allotment Letter, would clearly demonstrate that the Respondent did not fulfil its complete financial obligations within the stipulated time and in the manner mandated under the allotment terms. Several payments were delayed, partial, and not in strict conformity with the payment schedule prescribed under Demand- Cum-Allotment Letter.

10. That the housing scheme in question operates on a structured financial model. Defaults by one allottee disrupt the scheme and prejudice the rights of other eligible registrants awaiting allotment. Clause 11(iii) is therefore mandatory in nature and essential for the orderly functioning of the scheme.

11. That the Respondent then deposited Rs. 1,96,881/- (one lakh ninety six thousand eight hundred eighty one only) vide challan no. 41267 dated 24.06.2004 towards 29 Installments instead of total due 41 installments by that time. That the respondent deposited the documents on 30.06.2004 i.e. late by 459 days. As the respondent had not deposited the initial deposit of Rs. 5,26,460/- (five lakh twenty six thousand four hundred sixty only) which was due on 31.03.2002, therefore vide letter dated 29.07.2004, respondent was requested to deposit the initial amount.

12. That due to the aforesaid non-compliance and failure on the part of the Respondent to honour the payment obligations, consequential liabilities including misuse charges accrued, for which the Respondent alone is responsible. The Petitioner Authority has acted strictly in accordance with the governing policies, statutory provisions, and the terms of the allotment."

12. Learned State Commission proceeded on the foundation that complainant was prejudiced since the initial demand letter bearing block dated '26.12.2001 to 31.12.2001' was forwarded at the old address of the complainant and resulted in reducing the time for making the payment to one month, as the complainant subsequently collected the said letter in person on 28.02.2002. Learned State Commission further observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of DDA in not effecting the change of address of allottee and sending the Demand- cum-Allotment Letter at a wrong/earlier address.

We are of the considered opinion that in the present case, the dispatch of demand letter at old address would have prejudiced the rights of complainant in case the demand letter was not collected by the complainant on 28.02.2002. Since the letter was collected by the complainant on 28.02.2002 much before the last date of making the payment on 31.03.2002, the complainant still had sufficient time for making the payment within a period of one month before 31.03.2002. Complainant could have still deposited the amount by 31.05.2002 in case period of two months is extended to make it at parity with period of three months granted to other allottees.

However, apparently, amount of Rs.5,26,000/- required to be initially deposited by complainant by 31.03.2002 has only been belatedly deposited vide challan dated 28.05.2005 and 03.06.2005. There is also default by the complainant in depositing amount of Rs.1,96,881/- vide challan dated 28.06.2004 towards 29 instalments, instead of 41 due instalments. The non-compliance and failure on the part of the complainant to complete the payments' obligations along with charges accrued at the relevant time, as such, is beyond doubt though a Tripartite Agreement was executed by OP at request of complainant in May 2005 since he intended to finance the balance amount through PNB Housing Finance. Also, some further amount stands deposited by complainant pursuant to communications forwarded by DDA.

13. It may be noticed that DDA has a restoration policy in the event of cancellation of flats or on non-deposit of the consideration amount by the allottee, wherein Officers at different levels have been entrusted with powers to condone the delay in payments upto certain period in deserving cases. However, if the allottee remains continuously at default in depositing the consideration amount for a long period, the extension is normally not granted in routine making the Scheme completely inoperative for the wait-listed candidates. The deposit of the consideration amount as per schedule in terms of the Scheme is imperative, uniform and mandatory for making the Scheme workable, as in the case of default/cancellation of a flat, the same is liable to be offered to next in the waiting list. Apparently, the explanation offered by complainant for condoning delay in depositing the substantial amount of Rs.5,26,460/- in the present case till 28.05.2005 for a period of more than three years from 31.03.2002 is not deserving. However, a U-turn taken by DDA after implicitly extending the dates for deposit without condoning delay cannot be appreciated and they themselves created the mess, as in the meantime, allottee had deposited substantial amount. In view of above, the public interest in the present case needs to be balanced with the individual rights in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The directions made by learned State Commission for allotment of an alternate flat without ascertaining the availability of an alternate flat, cannot be legally sustained as the default of more than three years in making the substantial payments by the complainant is evident and has been ignored. Also, the allotment of alternate flat in the Scheme of 2021 at pre-existing rates in 2001-02 could not have been directed. An unending condonation of delay in depositing the scheduled payments without the approval of competent authority in routine correspondence is not permissible. For the aforesaid reasons, directions for alternate allotment as made by learned State Commission are liable to be set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, to balance the equities, OP is directed to refund the amount deposited by complainant with interest @ 14% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till realization. In case the amount is not paid within period of four weeks from passing of this Order, the interest shall be liable to be paid @ 15% p.a. from the date of default till realization. The Order passed by the learned State Commission is accordingly set aside and modified with the directions of refund. Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

A copy of this order be sent to both the parties, by the Registry.