13 February 2025 Property Law >> Personal Law  

In a recent legal development, a court has intervened to protect an allottee from the auction of a flat by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The case revolves around a dispute over payment deadlines and the interpretation of clauses within the DDA's "Housing Scheme 2019" brochure.

The appellant, Ved Prakash Thakur, had filed a writ petition challenging the DDA's decision to auction the flat allotted to him. The Single Judge had previously declined to grant interim relief staying the auction. This appeal followed that denial.

Thakur's counsel argued that he had deposited Rs. 1.04 crores, representing 75% of the flat's sale consideration, on December 31, 2020. This deposit, he contended, was made within the extended deadline provided by the DDA due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The counsel further asserted that a notice issued by the DDA on February 10, 2021, declaring the allotment cancelled for non-payment by December 31, 2020, contradicted the terms of the 2019 brochure. Specifically, he pointed to sub-clause (ii) of clause 9, which allows an additional six months beyond the initial 90-day period for depositing 75% of the total demand. He argued that the remaining 25% could have been paid within this extended six-month window, making the cancellation notice invalid.

The DDA's standing counsel countered that the demand notice issued on September 20, 2019, clearly stipulated a payment deadline of March 18, 2020, and stated that failure to meet this deadline would result in automatic cancellation. Since the 75% payment was made on December 31, 2020, the DDA argued the allotment was automatically cancelled. They further informed the court that the flat had already been put up for auction.

The court, after reviewing the records and hearing both parties, found merit in the appellant's arguments. It acknowledged that sub-clause (ii) of clause 9 of the brochure does indeed provide for a six-month extension, subject to a 10% annual interest rate. The court also noted the DDA's own extension of the payment deadline to December 31, 2020, which effectively superseded the earlier March 18, 2020, deadline. The court concluded that the DDA could not rely on the original deadline after having themselves extended it.

The court emphasized the potential for irreparable harm to the appellant if the flat were auctioned, especially given the substantial 75% payment already made. The balance of convenience, it noted, also favored the appellant.

The appellant's counsel then stated his client's willingness to deposit the remaining balance along with the stipulated interest. Based on this undertaking, the court directed the appellant to deposit the outstanding 25% plus interest within one month. It further restrained the DDA from proceeding with the auction if it hadn't yet been finalized, and stayed further proceedings if the auction had commenced but not concluded in a final sale. The final payment will be subject to the outcome of the underlying writ petition.

The appeal was disposed of with these directions. The court clarified that its observations were preliminary and would not influence the final decision in the writ petition. All rights and contentions of both parties were left open for adjudication in the ongoing proceedings.