Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2490 of 2001
PETITIONER:
R. K. SAXENA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/03/2001
BENCH:
M.B. Shah & S.N. Variava
JUDGMENT:
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
Leave granted.
Heard parties.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
This Appeal is against an Order dated 29th February,
2000 by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant has
been dismissed. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
The Respondent held an auction sale on 28th November,
1995. At this auction sale the Appellant was the highest
bidder. In terms of the conditions of the auction sale the
Appellant, on the same day, deposited a sum of Rs.
6,54,500/-. As per the terms of the auction sale the
balance 75% of the amount had to be paid within 60 days from
the issue of the Demand Letter. However, if sufficient
cause was shown then the Chairman could extend time up to a
maximum period of 180 days, subject to payment of interest
on the balance amount at the rate of 18% per annum. The
Demand Letter was issued on 3rd January, 1996. The balance
sum of Rs. 19,63,545/- had to be paid, in terms of the
auction sale, within 60 days of the said letter. The
Appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- on 19th
February, 1996. The Appellant then asked for extension of
time to make the balance payment. By a letter dated 29th
March, 1996 the Appellant was granted extension of time
subject to payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
Thereafter the Appellant again asked for extension of time
by a letter dated 2nd July, 1996. The extension was granted
by a letter dated 8th August, 1996. It must be mentioned
that by this date the Appellant had deposited sums of Rs.
1,50,000/- on 25th June, 1996, Rs. 4,00,000/- on 29th
August, 1996 and Rs. 1,40,000/- on 29th August, 1996.
By a letter dated 2nd September, 1996 the Appellant
again sought an extension of time. To this letter there was
no reply. The Appellant thereafter paid sums of Rs.
1,40,000/- on 17th September, 1996, Rs. 3,10,000/- on 20th
September, 1996, Rs. 1,39,000/- on 27th September, 1996 and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Rs. 1,34,500/- on 27th September, 1996. All these
payments, even though, made beyond time were accepted by the
Respondent. The Appellant had now paid the entire amount
payable in respect of that plot. Thereafter the Appellant
also paid interest on the delayed amounts at the rate of 25%
per annum. This amount was also accepted by the Respondent.
In spite of having accepted the delayed payments the
plot was not delivered to the Appellant. The Appellant,
therefore, sent legal notices on 22nd June, 1999 and on 29th
June, 1999. Only after receipt of the legal notices the
Respondent by letter dated 1st July, 1999 cancel the
allotment and forfeit the earnest money of Rs. 6,54,500/-.
The Appellant filed a Writ Petition which came to be
dismissed by the impugned Order dated 29th February, 2000.
The High Court held that after the expiry of the period the
Appellant could not have deposited the balance amount
unilaterally and without any demand being issued to him.
The High Court held that payments made after the extended
date were not valid and legal tender of money in accordance
with law. On this basis the High Court refused to grant any
relief to the Appellant.
In our view, the Order of the High Court cannot be
sustained. To be noted that by 27th September, 1996 the
entire amount payable for the plot had been deposited and
delay in payment was less than 30 days. Thereafter in
January 1997 interest at the rate of 25% per annum, on
delayed payments, was also paid. Both the delayed payments
and the interest amount were accepted by the Respondent.
The moment those payments were accepted there was deemed
extension of time. It is only after 1-1/2 years i.e. after
the legal notices were served by the Appellant that the
allotment is cancelled by the letter dated 1st July, 1999,
in our view, on the facts of this case, i.e. after
accepting the delayed payments and interest Respondent could
not have cancelled the allotment.
In the circumstances of this case, the impugned Order is
set aside. The letter of cancellation is quashed. The
Respondent is directed to allot, to the Appellant, the plot
purchased by him. The Appeal stands disposed of
accordingly. There will be no Order as to costs.
J. (M. B. SHAH)
J. (S. N. VARIAVA)
March 30, 2001.